What is the actual difference between Triple Antibiotic OIntment and
the opthalmic version of the same medication?
The label on the regular version says that it is NOT for use in the
eyes, and yet as far as I can figure out the formulation is the same.
The warnings do not say what the danger of using it in the eyes might
be. My sister has used it on her dogs' eyes without any apparent ill
effects, so the dangers may be subtle or not easily discerned.
The question would be moot except that the regular version is
available over the counter and the ophthalmic version requires a
prescription, hence a visit to the doctor's or vet's , a pharmacy fee,
and all-in-all a lot of money versos two or three dollars.
Is it that the opthalmic ointment is sterile? And if so what bacteria
might the nonsterile version harbor? Wouldn't the ointment closest to
the mouth of the tube become nonsterile after the first application?
HankG - 16 Aug 2007 22:00 GMT
> What is the actual difference between Triple Antibiotic OIntment and
> the opthalmic version of the same medication?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> might the nonsterile version harbor? Wouldn't the ointment closest to
> the mouth of the tube become nonsterile after the first application?
Obviously, the ophthalmic product is sterile. As to what biological
contaminants might be present in the o.t.c. version would really depend on
the manufacturer and their process. As a former manufacturing pharmacist
(parenterals and solid-dose), I can tell you that 'they' are all not alike,
notwithstanding claims by certain special interest groups that generics and
house-brands are 'just as good'. Just read the FDA recalls and warning
letters.
One must also consider that particle size and uniformity can be a factor in
the ophthalmic version. This is not reflected by the package label.
HankG
jmm1951 - 17 Aug 2007 04:13 GMT
> > What is the actual difference between Triple Antibiotic OIntment and
> > the opthalmic version of the same medication?
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> HankG
Thanks. Interesting response.