List of Excipients in Branded Drug BASIC CARE NASAL ALLERGY

« Back to Dashboard

Generic Drugs Containing BASIC CARE NASAL ALLERGY

Company	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient
L Perrigo Company	triamcinolone acetonide	0113-7005	ANHYDROUS DEXTROSE
L Perrigo Company	triamcinolone acetonide	0113-7005	BENZALKONIUM CHLORIDE
L Perrigo Company	triamcinolone acetonide	0113-7005	CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE SODIUM

What are the Most Frequently-Used Excipients in BASIC CARE NASAL ALLERGY?

# Of NDCs	Excipient
2	ANHYDROUS DEXTROSE
2	BENZALKONIUM CHLORIDE
2	CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE SODIUM

Basic Care Nasal Allergy Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities

Last updated: August 20, 2026

Basic Care Nasal Allergy is an over-the-counter intranasal corticosteroid product centered on fluticasone propionate, typically delivered at 50 micrograms per spray. Its commercial position depends less on active-ingredient exclusivity than on low-cost manufacturing, spray-device performance, sensory tolerability, supply reliability, and retail distribution. The strongest excipient opportunities are preservative reduction, suspension stability, plume optimization, and packaging differentiation rather than new chemical-entity patent protection.

What is Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

Basic Care Nasal Allergy is a private-label OTC nasal spray marketed for relief of symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis, including nasal congestion, sneezing, runny nose, and itching. The product is generally positioned as a lower-cost alternative to branded fluticasone products such as Flonase Allergy Relief.

Attribute	Basic Care Nasal Allergy
Dosage form	Metered-dose nasal spray
Active ingredient	Fluticasone propionate
Typical strength	50 mcg per spray
Therapeutic class	Intranasal corticosteroid
Regulatory category	OTC nasal allergy medicine
Primary indication	Allergic rhinitis
Commercial model	Private-label or store-brand distribution
Primary comparator	Flonase Allergy Relief
Main value drivers	Price, dose consistency, tolerability, device reliability, availability

The precise manufacturer, NDC, inactive-ingredient concentrations, and package configuration can vary by product presentation and supply agreement. DailyMed and the package’s FDA-regulated labeling should control product-specific analysis.[1]

What excipients are used in Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

The conventional fluticasone propionate nasal-spray formulation uses a water-based suspension system rather than a fully dissolved solution. Typical inactive ingredients include:

• Microcrystalline cellulose
• Carboxymethylcellulose sodium
• Dextrose
• Polysorbate 80
• Benzalkonium chloride
• Phenylethyl alcohol
• Purified water

The exact excipient list should be confirmed against the applicable product label. Fluticasone propionate has limited aqueous solubility, so the formulation relies on controlled particle dispersion, wetting, viscosity modification, and metered delivery.

What does each excipient do?

Excipient	Primary formulation function	Commercial or technical issue
Microcrystalline cellulose	Suspension structure and viscosity control	Can affect sprayability and sedimentation
Carboxymethylcellulose sodium	Suspending and thickening agent	Excess viscosity can impair plume formation
Polysorbate 80	Wetting and dispersion aid	Oxidation and compatibility require control
Dextrose	Tonicity and formulation support	Affects osmolality and nasal comfort
Benzalkonium chloride	Preservative	May create tolerability and preservative-free positioning issues
Phenylethyl alcohol	Preservative and antimicrobial support	Can affect odor and sensory acceptance
Purified water	Continuous phase	Requires microbiological control

The formulation must maintain uniform drug distribution throughout the bottle. A suspension that settles rapidly or forms agglomerates can generate inconsistent delivered doses, especially near the end of container use.

What excipient strategy best supports Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

The most practical strategy is a controlled, low-complexity suspension formulation that preserves dose uniformity while improving nasal comfort and device performance.

Suspension stability

Fluticasone propionate particle-size distribution is central to dose uniformity and spray behavior. Key controls include:

• Particle-size distribution of the active ingredient
• Wetting efficiency
• Viscosity at storage and use temperatures
• Redispersibility after storage
• Sedimentation rate
• Agitation instructions
• Compatibility with the pump and actuator

Microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethylcellulose sodium provide a structured vehicle. The ratio between these materials affects suspension stability, pump force, spray pattern, and the amount of residual product left in the container.

A low-cost excipient substitution is commercially viable only if it does not compromise delivered-dose uniformity, spray content uniformity, plume geometry, microbial control, or stability.

Preservative strategy

Benzalkonium chloride is a conventional preservative in nasal sprays. It supports multidose packaging but creates a potential product-positioning disadvantage for consumers seeking preservative-free products or reporting nasal irritation.

A preservative-reduction strategy could use:

1. A preservative-free single-dose or unit-dose package.
2. A multidose pump with validated microbial-barrier technology.
3. A lower-preservative formulation supported by packaging and microbiological controls.
4. A preservative system with a different sensory or tolerability profile.

The commercial tradeoff is direct. Preservative-free packaging usually increases component cost, fill-finish complexity, and inventory requirements. It can still support a premium SKU for sensitive users and pediatric or frequent-use segments.

Sensory optimization

Consumers evaluate nasal sprays through immediate sensory effects. Burning, bitterness, throat drainage, odor, and post-use drip can affect repeat purchases even when the active ingredient is clinically effective.

Potential levers include:

• Reducing unnecessary preservative concentration
• Controlling formulation osmolality
• Adjusting pH within the approved product range
• Reducing residual alcohol-related odor
• Improving droplet-size distribution
• Minimizing posterior throat deposition
• Reducing pump force and improving actuation consistency

Flavor masking has limited value for an intranasal product because the main issue is usually drainage into the throat rather than oral taste alone. Device geometry and plume direction may provide greater commercial benefit than adding flavoring excipients.

What formulations are protected by Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

The principal formulation protection opportunity is likely to arise from the complete product architecture rather than from the basic use of known excipients.

Potentially protectable subject matter includes:

• Specific ratios of suspending agents
• Defined fluticasone particle-size ranges
• Preservative-free multidose systems
• Low-residue formulations
• Improved redispersibility after prolonged storage
• Specific viscosity windows
• Spray-pattern or droplet-size controls
• Container-closure systems that limit microbial ingress
• Formulations with reduced irritation or improved sensory performance

A patent directed only to the use of common excipients with fluticasone would face prior-art risk. Stronger claims would link composition parameters to measurable performance, such as improved dose uniformity, reduced sedimentation, or a defined spray-plume profile.

What is the Orange Book status of Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

Basic Care Nasal Allergy is generally understood as an OTC product rather than a separately developed innovator product with an independent Orange Book patent estate. The Orange Book primarily identifies FDA-approved drug products, therapeutic equivalence information, and certain listed patents or exclusivity periods.[2]

The relevant regulatory pathways may include:

• An OTC monograph pathway for eligible nasal allergy ingredients.
• An approved abbreviated application or private-label arrangement.
• A product sourced from an approved manufacturer and marketed under a store brand.
• A regulatory structure in which the retailer does not own the underlying manufacturing or formulation rights.

Fluticasone propionate nasal-spray exclusivity is mature. The branded Flonase product received FDA approval in the 1990s, and OTC fluticasone nasal spray entered the U.S. market after FDA approved the prescription-to-OTC switch in 2014.[3] Basic Care’s commercial risk therefore does not primarily come from an unexpired compound patent.

When does Basic Care Nasal Allergy lose exclusivity?

Basic Care Nasal Allergy does not appear to depend on a single, current product-specific exclusivity period. Its commercial protection is based on regulatory compliance, sourcing, retail access, trademarks, contracts, and execution.

Relevant exclusivity categories are:

Exclusivity category	Relevance to Basic Care
New chemical entity exclusivity	Not commercially relevant to mature fluticasone
Original product patent	Historical relevance; core protection has expired or become commercially immaterial
OTC monograph access	Important for lawful marketing
Formulation patent	Possible for differentiated versions
Device patent	Possible for proprietary pump or closure systems
Trademark and private-label rights	Relevant to brand control
Supplier or retailer agreement	Often commercially important
Manufacturing know-how	Important where formulation and device integration are difficult

A competitor can generally enter with a compliant fluticasone nasal-spray product without waiting for a new Basic Care exclusivity period, subject to FDA requirements and any valid third-party rights.

How strong is the patent estate for Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

The patent estate is likely weak at the active-ingredient level and potentially stronger at the formulation, device, and manufacturing levels.

Active ingredient

Fluticasone propionate is a mature corticosteroid. Basic Care does not gain meaningful exclusivity merely by selling the known active ingredient in a standard nasal-spray presentation.

Formulation

A formulation patent could have value if it demonstrates a specific technical advantage. Weak claims would cover broad combinations of standard excipients. Stronger claims would define narrow composition ranges and link them to stability or delivery data.

Device

The nasal pump can create defensible rights around:

• Metering accuracy
• Priming behavior
• Dose counting
• Anti-clogging geometry
• Microbial protection
• Container evacuation
• Spray angle and plume distribution

Manufacturing

Manufacturing know-how may be more valuable than patents. Relevant barriers include:

• Micronization and particle-size control
• Uniform suspension blending
• Low-shear processing
• Pump filling accuracy
• Container-closure integrity
• In-process dose testing
• Stability-indicating analytical methods

What generic entry risks exist for Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

Generic and store-brand entry risk is high because the active ingredient is established and multiple manufacturers can supply intranasal fluticasone products.

The principal entry scenarios are:

1. A lower-priced fluticasone product using a conventional suspension and pump.
2. A retailer switching suppliers while retaining the Basic Care brand.
3. A competitor offering a preservative-free version.
4. A private-label manufacturer competing on bottle count or dose count.
5. A branded product competing through coupons, advertising, or pediatric positioning.
6. A combination nasal product using a different active ingredient or mechanism.

The primary defenses are not compound patents. They are cost leadership, high fill rates, reliable actuation, favorable consumer reviews, and retail placement.

Which companies are challenging the Basic Care position?

The competitive field includes branded and generic manufacturers of intranasal corticosteroids. Key competitive products include:

Product or category	Active ingredient	Competitive pressure
Flonase Allergy Relief	Fluticasone propionate	Brand recognition and broad distribution
Generic fluticasone propionate sprays	Fluticasone propionate	Direct price competition
Nasacort Allergy 24HR	Triamcinolone acetonide	Alternative intranasal steroid
Rhinocort Allergy Spray	Budesonide	Alternative steroid and brand positioning
Nasonex-related products	Mometasone furoate	Alternative steroid, subject to market presentation
Antihistamine nasal sprays	Azelastine or other antihistamines	Different symptom and onset positioning
Saline sprays and rinses	No active drug or saline-based	Low-cost adjunct and substitute

Retail private-label programs can change suppliers without changing the consumer-facing brand. That structure increases procurement competition and reduces the value of a formulation patent that does not create a material cost or performance advantage.

What commercial opportunities exist for excipient suppliers?

Excipient suppliers have several routes into the Basic Care category.

Preservative-free systems

A validated preservative-free multidose platform could support a premium product line. The commercial opportunity is strongest where the package protects against microbial ingress without materially increasing actuation force or residual volume.

Improved suspension vehicles

A vehicle that improves redispersibility, reduces settling, or lowers pump force could create value for both the manufacturer and retailer. The benefit must be demonstrated through release, stability, and device testing.

Lower-cost excipient systems

Replacing or optimizing excipients can reduce cost if the new composition maintains:

• Assay and impurity specifications
• Delivered-dose uniformity
• Spray content uniformity
• Microbial limits
• Stability
• Pump compatibility
• Patient acceptability

A small per-unit reduction can have material value in high-volume OTC distribution. The largest savings may come from fewer manufacturing steps, lower rejection rates, improved fill accuracy, and fewer component changes rather than from the nominal price of an individual excipient.

Sensory-differentiated products

A lower-irritation or lower-drip formulation could support a premium store-brand extension. Consumer research should focus on immediate post-use experience, not only clinical symptom relief.

Packaging and device integration

The strongest commercial opportunity may involve the complete formulation-device system. A pump that delivers a consistent plume with less residual product can improve perceived quality and reduce complaints.

What FDA regulatory issues affect excipient changes?

Excipient changes are regulated through the applicable OTC or approved-product pathway. They can trigger comparability, stability, bioequivalence, device-performance, or labeling requirements depending on the product’s legal basis and the scope of the change.

Critical regulatory workstreams include:

• Confirmation of the product’s regulatory pathway
• Excipient qualification and supplier controls
• Comparative release testing
• Spray content uniformity
• Droplet-size and plume characterization
• Container-closure integrity
• Microbiological effectiveness
• Long-term and accelerated stability
• Extractables and leachables
• Human factors for revised packaging
• Label consistency and OTC compliance

The FDA’s OTC monograph framework establishes conditions under which certain nonprescription drugs can be marketed without an individual product approval, but the product must still satisfy applicable requirements.[4] A formulation or device change outside the permitted framework may require a different submission strategy.

What patent litigation affects Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

No major product-specific patent litigation is identifiable from the general product name alone. The more relevant legal risks are:

• Third-party formulation patents
• Nasal-pump and container patents
• Supplier agreements
• Trademark rights
• Manufacturing confidentiality
• Contractual restrictions on private-label supply
• Regulatory enforcement involving labeling or manufacturing quality

Paragraph IV challenges are more relevant to approved prescription or abbreviated applications than to a conventional OTC private-label product marketed under mature active-ingredient rules. Any supplier using an ANDA pathway would need a product-specific patent and exclusivity analysis through FDA records and the Orange Book.

How does Basic Care compare with Flonase Allergy Relief?

Factor	Basic Care Nasal Allergy	Flonase Allergy Relief
Active ingredient	Fluticasone propionate	Fluticasone propionate
Brand strength	Lower	Higher
Expected price	Lower	Higher
Core clinical mechanism	Same	Same
Differentiation	Retail access and value	Brand, packaging, promotion
Patent advantage	Limited	Historical innovator estate
Excipient opportunity	Cost and tolerability optimization	Brand extensions and differentiated delivery
Main commercial risk	Supplier and retailer switching	Generic and private-label erosion

Basic Care can compete effectively where consumers prioritize price and availability. Flonase retains advantages in brand recognition, advertising, and perceived reliability.

What is the revenue exposure from Basic Care Nasal Allergy?

Revenue exposure is driven by unit volume, retailer distribution, seasonal demand, and supplier pricing rather than patent expiry. Allergy products have recurring spring and fall demand, with regional variation based on pollen exposure and climate.

The highest-value commercial variables are:

• Retail shelf placement
• Online search ranking
• Store-brand penetration
• Bottle count and dose count
• Supply continuity
• Cost per delivered dose
• Consumer repeat purchase
• Complaint and return rates
• Promotional pricing
• Seasonal inventory planning

A formulation improvement that reduces cost by even a small amount per bottle can materially affect gross margin at national retail scale. A premium preservative-free product may produce higher gross profit per unit but lower total volume.

Key Takeaways

• Basic Care Nasal Allergy is a mature OTC fluticasone propionate nasal-spray product.
• The core active ingredient is not a meaningful source of new exclusivity.
• The main excipients support suspension stability, wetting, viscosity, tonicity, preservation, and microbial control.
• The strongest formulation opportunities are preservative-free delivery, improved redispersibility, reduced irritation, and better spray-device performance.
• Patent value is more likely to arise from formulation-device integration or manufacturing methods than from standard excipient combinations.
• Generic and private-label entry risk is high.
• Commercial success depends on cost, retail access, supply reliability, actuation quality, and consumer tolerability.
• Any product-specific patent, NDC, manufacturer, or inactive-ingredient conclusion must be tied to the exact marketed presentation and its current FDA label.

FAQs

Is Basic Care Nasal Allergy the same as Flonase?

It uses the same principal active ingredient, fluticasone propionate, but the products may differ in excipient composition, pump design, packaging, manufacturing source, and labeling presentation.

Can benzalkonium chloride be removed from a fluticasone nasal spray?

Yes, but removal requires a suitable preservative-free package or an alternative validated microbial-control strategy. The change affects stability, microbiological control, packaging cost, and regulatory documentation.

Does fluticasone particle size affect nasal-spray performance?

Yes. Particle size affects suspension uniformity, sedimentation, redispersibility, deposition, and delivered-dose consistency. It is a central control point in formulation development.

Can a retailer patent a Basic Care nasal-spray formulation?

A retailer could seek patent protection for a novel formulation, device, or manufacturing process, but broad claims covering conventional fluticasone and standard excipients would face substantial prior-art challenges.

Is a preservative-free Basic Care nasal spray commercially attractive?

It can be attractive as a premium extension for consumers concerned about irritation or frequent use. Its viability depends on whether packaging and manufacturing costs remain compatible with the private-label pricing model.

References

1. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). DailyMed: Drug label information. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/approved-drug-products-therapeutic-equivalence-evaluations-orange-book

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). FDA approves first over-the-counter nasal spray to treat allergies. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-over-counter-nasal-spray-treat-allergies

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Over-the-counter monograph drugs. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/over-counter-otc-nonprescription-drugs/otc-monograph-drugs