Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ADMET & DMPK logoLink to ADMET & DMPK
. 2019 Aug 5;7(3):183–195. doi: 10.5599/admet.704

Harmonizing solubility measurement to lower inter-laboratory variance – progress of consortium of biopharmaceutical tools (CoBiTo) in Japan

Asami Ono 1,*, Naoya Matsumura 2, Takahiro Kimoto 3, Yoshiyuki Akiyama 3, Satoko Funaki 4, Naomi Tamura 4, Shun Hayashi 5, Yukiko Kojima 6, Masahiro Fushimi 6, Hiroshi Sudaki 7, Risa Aihara 7, Yuka Haruna 8, Maiko Jiko 8, Masaru Iwasaki 9, Takuya Fujita 10, Kiyohiko Sugano 10
PMCID: PMC8957233  PMID: 35350659

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to harmonize the protocol of equilibrium solubility measurements for poorly water-soluble drugs to lower inter-laboratory variance. The “mandatory” and “recommended” procedures for the shake-flask method were harmonized based on the knowledge and experiences of each company and information from the literature. The solubility of model drugs was measured by the harmonized protocol (HP) and the non-harmonized proprietary protocol of each company (nonHP). Albendazole, griseofulvin, dipyridamole, and glibenclamide were used as model drugs. When using the nonHP, the solubility values showed large inter-laboratory variance. In contrast, inter-laboratory variance was markedly reduced when using the HP.

Keywords: shake-flask solubility, equilibrium solubility, poorly water-soluble drugs

Introduction

In recent years, drug candidates have tended to be poorly water-soluble [1-3]. The oral absorption of a drug is determined by the solubility, dissolution rate, and membrane permeability of the drug in the gastrointestinal tract [4-7]. Poor water-solubility often causes poor and variable oral absorption [8-11]. Therefore, solubility measurements are routinely performed in drug discovery and development [12-15]. The quality of solubility data is critically important for drug design [16-19], oral absorption prediction [20-23], and formulation development [24-26]. However, the solubility values of poorly water-soluble drugs vary depending on the experimental procedures [27].

Recently, Avdeef et al. reported consensus recommendations on the experimental procedures of equilibrium solubility measurements by the shake-flask method [28]. They discussed various aspects of equilibrium solubility measurements, such as incubation temperature, incubation time, the separation method of solids from solution, and pH measurements.

As a part of the Consortium of Biopharmaceutical Tools (CoBiTo) project, we conducted a questionnaire concerning the solubility measurements of each company. It was revealed that each company employs different experimental procedures (Table 1), suggesting that there would be large inter-laboratory variance in solubility data.

Table 1.

Summary of solubility measurement protocols of each company before harmonization.

Company A B C D E F H
Vigorous agitation yes yes no yes yes yes no
Temperature control yes
(25 °C)		 yes
(37 °C)		 yes
(37 °C)		 yes
(37 °C)		 yes
(37 °C)		 yes
(37 °C)		 yes
(37 °C)
Equilibration for > 24 h no
(18 h)		 no
(1 h)		 yes
(24 h)		 yes
(24 h)		 yes
(24 h)		 yes
(24 h)		 yes
(24 h)
Pre-saturation of filter no yes no yes no a yes no
Preventing adsorption no yes no yes no yes no
Solid state characterization no no no yes no yes no
Open in a new tab

a Separated by centrifugation.

The purpose of the present study was to harmonize the experimental procedures of solubility measurements by the shake-flask method for low solubility drugs to lower inter-laboratory variance. Albendazole, griseofulvin, dipyridamole, and glibenclamide were used as model drugs (Table 2, Figures 1 and 2).

Table 2.

Physicochemical properties of model drugs.

Compound MW pKaa log Poctb Lit. Solubility Calculated solubility at pH6.8 c, μg/mL Ref.
Solubility (37 °C),
μg/mL		 pH
Albendazole 265 4.2 (base) 3.1 0.20 (25 °C) 7.4 0.20 31
(25 °C) 0.95 7 0.95 32
0.74 (Intrinsic solubility) 0.74 33
0.85 d 6.5 0.85 34
1.1 d 5 0.95 34
0.80 d 6.5 0.79 35
Griseofulvin 353 N/Ae 2.5 5.3 (25 °C) 7.4 N/A 31
15 d 6.5 N/A 35
15 6.5 N/A 36
16 6.5 N/A 37
Dipyridamole 505 4.9 (base) 3.9 4.9 7 4.9 32
(37 °C) 6.6 d 6.5 6.5 35
5.4 6.5 5.3 36
6 6.5 5.9 37
Glibenclamide 494 5.2 (acid) 3.1 4.4 (25 °C) 7.4 1.1 31
(37 °C) 5.6 7 3.6 32
4.5 d 6.5 8.8 34
0.3 d 5 7.5 34
4.4 d 6.5 8.7 35
3.0 6.5 5.8 38
0.30 5 7.5 38
Open in a new tab

a Reference [29]

b Reference [30]

c Calculated by the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation from the reported solubility value, pH and pKa

d Measured by μDISS Profiler

e Not applicable

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Chemical structures of model drugs.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Polarized light microscopy images of model drugs (ECLIPSE Ti (Nikon, Japan)).

Experimental

Materials

Albendazole was purchased from Tokyo Chemical Industry Co., Ltd (Tokyo, Japan). Griseofulvin, dipyridamole, and glibenclamide were purchased from FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation (Osaka, Japan). An identical batch was used by all companies.

The Japanese Pharmacopeia (JP) 2nd fluid for dissolution testing (12.5 mM KH2PO4 and 12.5 mM Na2HPO4, pH 6.8, buffer capacity 10 mM/ ΔpH) was used for the solubility measurement.

Equilibrium solubility measurement by the shake-flask method

The equilibrium solubility of the model drugs was measured by the harmonized protocol (HP), and the non-harmonized proprietary protocol of each company (nonHP). The protocol outlined below was presented to each company as the HP. To be viable at each company, the details of the HP were not fully specified. The solubility of the model drug in the JP 2nd fluid at 37 °C was measured. The experiments were performed in triplicate.

  1. Add an excess of a drug to a vial, then add a buffer solution (e.g. 5 mg/ 5 mL in a 15 mL vial).

  2. After stirring for 1 min with a vortex mixer, shake the sample vigorously at 37 °C for 24 h with light shielding. If possible, measure the concentration-time profile1.

  3. Let stand for a few minutes to sediment solids.

  4. Filter the supernatant, discarding the first few portions (e.g., 0.1 mL for 4 mm diameter filter). Select an appropriate filter material. If possible, pre-heat the filter and syringe to 37 °C before use.

  5. Dilute the filtrate as necessary. If possible, to avoid adsorption, pre-treat a tip with the filtrate, add a surfactant (a few microliters) to the filtrate, and/or rinse the tip with an organic solvent.

  6. Measure the final pH.

  7. Measure the concentration of a drug by an appropriate method (e.g. UV-Vis, HPLC/UV-Vis, or LC-MS).

  8. If possible, analyse the initial and residual solids by powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD)1.

Solubility measurement by μDISS Profiler

The solubility of the model drugs was also measured with a μDISS Profiler™ instrument (pION INC) by company F. This instrument employs eight fibre-optic dip probes, each with its own dedicated photodiode array spectrometer [39]. An excess of a model drug and 20 mL of a buffer solution pre-heated to 37 °C were added to the vessels and stirred at 37 °C for 24 h. The concentration of the model drug was measured by in situ UV probes (wave length 270-280 nm for albendazole, griseofulvin, dipyridamole, and 250-265 nm for glibenclamide). The experiments were performed in duplicate.

Results and discussion

Harmonizing the protocol for equilibrium solubility measurements by the shake-flask method

Consensus recommendations about the shake flask method have been summarized by Avdeef et al. [28]. However, since every company has its own situation, it may not be practical to pay equal attention to every recommendation. Therefore, we first divided the recommendations into two categories, “Mandatory” and “Recommended”, including a few additional recommendations based on their possible impact on solubility data. We then embodied these mandatory and recommended items as a harmonized protocol.

Mandatory

Agitation

Sufficient agitation should be applied to firmly wet and suspend drug particles. Poor wettability can often be a problem for poorly water-soluble drugs. Sonication is not recommended as it can promote aggregation of solids [28].

Incubation temperature

The temperature must be controlled. Solubility can vary depending on the drug, by a factor of 0.4 (e.g., erythromycin) to 6.5 (e.g., triflupromazine) between 25 °C and 37 °C [40].

Incubation time

The incubation time should be set to > 24 h to achieve equilibrium [28,41-43]. If possible, the concentration should be measured over time to ensure achieving equilibrium, for example at 1, 6, and 24 h [24].

Filtration

Lipophilic drugs tend to adsorb to the filter material [44,45,46]. A hydrophilic type filter (e.g., hydrophilic PVDF and PES) is recommended for unionized species [28]. The first few portions of a filtrate must be discarded to pre-saturate the filter.

Pipetting

Lipophilic drugs tend to adsorb to a pipet tip and vial materials [47,48]. To avoid adsorption, pipet tips can be pre-treated by the filtrate solution. Addition of a drop of surfactant is also effective for preventing adsorption. After pipetting, the tip can be rinsed with an organic solvent.

Final pH

The pH value can change during solubility measurements for ionizable drugs, especially when a large excess of an ionizable drug is added in a salt form.

Solid state characterization

The initial form may transform to a more stable form, a free form, a hydrate, etc. during solubility measurements. The solid forms of the initial solids and the residual solids after solubility measurements (equilibrium maker) should be characterized by PXRD, differential scanning calorimetry, Raman spectra, etc.

Recommended

Filtration temperature

To maintain the temperature of an equilibrated solution during filtration, it is recommended to pre-warm filters and syringes before filtration [49].

Light shielding

It is recommended to shade the sample during the solubility measurements.

Sedimentation after agitation

It is recommended to settle the residual solids after agitation to facilitate filtration. Sedimentation can also prevent the formation of a supersaturated solution by intensive stirring [28, 43].

The abovementioned mandatory and recommended items were embodied as a HP, considering practicability at each company (See experimental section). Some flexibility was left in the HP so that it could be practically applied to each company.

In the previous consensus recommendation paper, sedimentation was recommended as the first choice to separate solids from solution [28]. However, direct sampling from the supernatant requires some technical skills, especially when using small vials or microtubes. Fine powders may be re-suspended even by slight stimulation. Therefore, we used filtration in the harmonized protocol.

Equilibrium solubility measured by nonHP and HP

Eight companies participated in this study (A to H). The equilibrium solubility of four model drugs in the JP 2nd fluid (pH 6.8) was measured by the nonHP and HP (Tables 3 and 4, respectively). The comparisons of the solubility values between laboratories are shown in Figure 3.

Table 3.

Equilibrium solubility of model drugs in the JP 2nd fluid (pH 6.8) obtained by the proprietary protocols of each company before harmonization.

Compound Solubility (SD) (μg/ mL) CV% a
A B C D E F H Average
Albendazole 0.29
(0.02)		 0.67
(0.05)		 0.25
(0.03)		 0.86
(0.02)		 3.74
(1.44)		 1.10
(0.01)		 0.25
(0.03)		 1.02
(1.15)		 113
Griseofulvin 5.7
(0.3)		 12.0
(0.2)		 11.0
(0.1)		 11.7
(0.1)		 12.2
(0.2)		 12.1
(0.0)		 11.1
(0.1)		 10.8
(2.12)		 20
Dipyridamole 1.24
(0.11)		 4.08
(0.29)		 0.66
(0.02)		 4.63
(0.02)		 7.69
(2.88)		 5.22
(0.14)		 0.66
(0.02)		 3.45
(2.49)		 72
Glibenclamide 1.1
(0.0)		 3.4
(0.1)		 3.0
(0.0)		 4.6
(0.0)		 5.4
(0.4)		 3.2
(0.2)		 3.0
(0.0)		 3.4
(1.3)		 38
Open in a new tab

a Coefficient of variation of solubility values obtained from 7 companies.

Table 4.

Equilibrium solubility of model drugs in the JP 2nd fluid (pH 6.8) obtained by the harmonized protocol.

Compound Solubility (SD) (μg/ mL) CV% a
A B C D E F G H Average
Albendazole 1.11
(0.14)		 0.73
(0.08)		 0.71
(0.03)		 0.86
(0.02)		 0.79
(0.02)		 0.96
(0.04)		 1.01
(0.02)		 0.70
(0.03)		 0.86
(0.14)		 17
Griseofulvin 12.0
(0.5)		 10.5
(0.1)		 11.4
(0.2)		 12.3
(0.1)		 11.7
(0.1)		 12.7
(0.3)		 13.0
(0.1)		 11.5
(0.2)		 11.9
(0.75)		 6
Dipyridamole 5.15
(0.02)		 3.27
(0.06)		 3.69
(0.37)		 5.65
(0.09)		 5.67
(0.50)		 5.07
(0.09)		 5.62
(0.25)		 3.70
(0.37)		 4.73
(0.94)		 20
Glibenclamide 5.2
(0.4)		 3.7
(0.2)		 4.8
(0.0)		 4.4
(0.5)		 5.2
(0.3)		 5.7
(0.2)		 5.6
(0.1)		 4.8
(0.0)		 4.9
(0.6)		 13
Open in a new tab

a Coefficient of variation of solubility values obtained from 8 companies.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Solubility of model drugs measured by the non-harmonized proprietary protocols (nonHPs) and the harmonized protocol (HP).

The solubility values measured by the nonHPs showed marked inter-laboratory variance for albendazole, dipyridamole, and glibenclamide (CV = 113, 72, and 38 %, respectively). For griseofulvin, the inter-laboratory variance was smaller (CV = 20 %). The solubility of griseofulvin would be less susceptible to adsorption to a filter and plastic materials because its lipophilicity is lower than the other model drugs. The solubility values measured by A, C and H were lower than the others probably due to adsorption to filters and tips. On the other hand, the solubility measured by E was higher than the others probably because centrifugation was used to separate solids from a solution.

In contrast to the nonHPs, the solubility values measured by the HP showed smaller inter-laboratory variance for all model drugs (CV < 20 %). Furthermore, the solubility values were in good agreement with the literature values (Table 5). The final pH values were within ± 0.03 of the initial pH values for all model drugs. The solid phases of the samples were evaluated by PXRD before and after solubility measurements (by A, B, C, F, and H). As shown in Figure 4, no solid form transformation occurred during the solubility measurements for all model drugs. The concentration-time profiles were measured to confirm achieving equilibrium by D, E, F, and G (data not shown).

Table 5.

Average values of equilibrium solubility of model drugs obtained by different methods at pH 6.8, 37 °C.

Compound Solubility
(μg/mL) (log, M)
nonHPs HP μDISS Literature nonHPs HP μDISS Literature
Albendazole 1.02 0.86 0.69 0.86 a -5.41 -5.49 -5.58 -5.49
Griseofulvin 11 12 13 15 b -4.51 -4.47 -4.43 -4.36
Dipyridamole 3.5 4.7 5.2 5.7 c -5.17 -5.03 -4.99 -4.95
Glibenclamide 3.4 4.9 5.5 7.0 d -5.16 -5.00 -4.95 -4.85
Open in a new tab

a Reference [32-35]

b Reference [35-37]

c Reference [35-37]

d Reference [32, 34, 35, 38]

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Powder X-ray diffraction patterns of samples obtained before (red lines) and after (blue lines) solubility assay (measured by company C) (Rigaku SmartLab diffractometer, Rigaku, Japan). The diffraction patterns were collected from 5° to 40° at a scan rate of 5°/min (Cu Kα radiation (40 kV and 30 mA), Rigaku D/teX ultra-highspeed position-sensitive detector).

The solubility measurements were also performed by the μDISS Profiler. The dissolution profiles of the model drugs were shown in Figure 5. The solubility values of albendazole, griseofulvin, dipyridamole, and glibenclamide were 0.69, 13, 5.2, 5.5 μg/mL, respectively. These solubility values were similar to the values measured by the HP (Table 5 and Figure 6).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Dissolution profiles of model drugs by μDISS Profiler

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Comparison of equilibrium solubility at pH 6.8, 37 °C of model drugs obtained by different methods.

In this study, the pH value did not change during incubation, because the drug concentration was set to about 1 mg/mL (as of added solids) and the buffer capacity was set to be sufficient. However, in the case when a large amount of a drug and/or a buffer with limited buffer capacity are used, the final pH after incubation would be different from the initial pH. It should be noted that even when starting with a salt form, at the neutral pH region, the residual solids become a free form after achieving equilibrium if the pH is below (for acids) or above (for bases) the pHmax (the pH where the system changes from the pH-controlled region to the common-ion-effect-controlled region). Therefore, the observed solubility becomes the same regardless of the starting material being a salt or a free form if the solution is well-buffered to maintain the pH (unless there is a difference in the solid forms of residual free form solids). This point is often misunderstood by pharmacokinetic scientists who perform computational oral absorption simulation for a salt form drug substance. The dissolution of a salt and the supersaturation and phase separation of a free form must be taken into account to simulate the oral absorption of the drug. The Ksp (the drug-salt solubility product) value is at least required to simulate the dissolution of a salt. However, the dissolution mechanisms of a salt are not fully understood, especially the chemical reactions in the unstirred water layer [50, 51].

It is highly recommended to analyse the solid forms of both initial and residual solids. In drug discovery, little information about polymorphs and pseudo-polymorphs is available. Therefore, the information about the solid form obtained along with the solubility data is important for further solid form characterization.

For the assessment of drug solubility in physiological gastrointestinal conditions, an HCl solution of pH 1 to 2 is often used. In an HCl solution, the solubility of a drug is often controlled by the common ionic effect of the chloride ion. In this case, the residual solid after the solubility measurement becomes an HCl salt. In addition, attention should be paid to the formation of soluble drug-buffer complexes or insoluble drug-buffer precipitates in a phosphate buffer for basic drugs [52, 53]. The analysis of the residual solid after solubility measurements can clarify the formation of insoluble drug-buffer precipitates.

The harmonized protocol would be suitable for solubility measurements at the preclinical stages, e.g., the late lead optimization and pre-formulation stages. We successfully predicted the oral absorption of proprietary drug candidates in dogs using the solubility data measured by the HP [54]. It should be noted that the solid form may change during the preparation of a suspension formulation for a preclinical in vivo study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the inter-laboratory variance was successfully reduced by applying the harmonized solubility protocol. The harmonized protocol proposed in this study is practically applicable to drug discovery and development.

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted as part of the Consortium for Biopharmaceutics Tools (CoBiTo) in Research Center for Drug Discovery and Pharmaceutical Development Science of Ritsumeikan University. Kiyohiko Sugano is the founder of BioavailabilityDesign LLC.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: There is no conflict of interest in the work presented.

References

  • [1].Lipinski C. A.. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44 (2000) 235-249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Hann M. M., Keserü G. M.. Finding the sweet spot: the role of nature and nurture in medicinal chemistry. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 11 (2012) 355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Waring M. J., Arrowsmith J., Leach A. R., Leeson P. D., Mandrell S., Owen R. M., Pairaudeau G., Pennie W. D., Pickett S. D., Wang J., Wallace O., Weir A.. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 14 (2015) 475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Dressman J., Amidon G., Fleisher D.. Absorption potential: estimating the fraction absorbed for orally administered compounds. J. Pharm. Sci. 74 (1985) 588-589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Amidon G., Lennernäs H., Shah V., Crison J.. A theoretical basis for a Biopharmaceutic Drug Classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability. Pharm. Res. 12 (1995) 413-420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Yu L.. An Integrated Model for Determining Causes of Poor Oral Drug Absorption. Pharm. Res. 16 (1999) 1883-1887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Sugano K.. Introduction to computational oral absorption simulation. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 5 (2009) 259-293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Venkatesh S., Lipper R. A.. Role of the development scientist in compound lead selection and optimization. J. Pharm. Sci. 89 (2000) 145-154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Thomas V. H., Bhattachar S., Hitchingham L., Zocharski P., Naath M., Surendran N., Stoner C. L., El-Kattan A.. The road map to oral bioavailability: an industrial perspective. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2 (2006) 591-608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Stegemann S., Leveiller F., Franchi D., de Jong H., Linden H.. When poor solubility becomes an issue: from early stage to proof of concept. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 31 (2007) 249-261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].van Hoogevest P., Liu X., Fahr A.. Drug delivery strategies for poorly water-soluble drugs: the industrial perspective. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 8 (2011) 1481-1500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Sugano K., Okazaki A., Sugimoto S., Tavornvipas S., Omura A.. Solubility and dissolution profile assessment in drug discovery. Drug Metab. Pharmacokinet. 22 (2007) 225-254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Alsenz J., Kansy M.. High throughput solubility measurement in drug discovery and development. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 59 (2007) 546-567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Di L., Fish P. V., Mano T.. Bridging solubility between drug discovery and development. Drug Discov Today 17 (2012) 486-495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Konczol A., Dargo G.. Brief overview of solubility methods: Recent trends in equilibrium solubility measurement and predictive models. Drug discovery today. Technologies 27 (2018) 3-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Di L., Kerns E. H., Carter G. T.. Drug-like property concepts in pharmaceutical design. Curr. Pharm. Des. 15 (2009) 2184-2194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Lipinski C. A., Lombardo F., Dominy B. W., Feeney P. J.. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 64 (2012) 4-17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Papadatos G., Alkarouri M., Gillet V. J., Willett P., Kadirkamanathan V., Luscombe C. N., Bravi G., Richmond N. J., Pickett S. D., Hussain J.. Lead optimization using matched molecular pairs: inclusion of contextual information for enhanced prediction of HERG inhibition, solubility, and lipophilicity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010) 1872-1886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Le Manach C., Nchinda A. T., Paquet T., Gonzalez Cabrera D., Younis Y., Han Z., Bashyam S., Zabiulla M., Taylor D., Lawrence N., White K. L., Charman S. A., Waterson D., Witty M. J., Wittlin S., Botha M. E., Nondaba S. H., Reader J., Birkholtz L. M., Jimenez-Diaz M.B., Martinez M. S., Ferrer S., Angulo-Barturen I., Meister S., Antonova-Koch Y., Winzeler E. A., Street L. J., Chibale K.. Identification of a Potential Antimalarial Drug Candidate from a Series of 2-Aminopyrazines by Optimization of Aqueous Solubility and Potency across the Parasite Life Cycle. J. Med. Chem. 59 (2016) 9890-9905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Takano R., Furumoto K., Shiraki K., Takata N., Hayashi Y., Aso Y., Yamashita S.. Rate-limiting steps of oral absorption for poorly water-soluble drugs in dogs; prediction from a miniscale dissolution test and a physiologically-based computer simulation. Pharm. Res. 25 (2008) 2334-2344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Sugano K.. Fraction of a dose absorbed estimation for structurally diverse low solubility compounds. Int. J. Pharm. 405 (2011) 79-89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Matsumura N., Yamaura Y., Katagi J., Ono S., Kim S., Yamashita S., Sugano K.. Evaluation of Using Dogs to Predict Fraction of Oral Dose Absorbed in Humans for Poorly Water-Soluble Drugs. J. Pharm. Sci. 107 (2018) 2489-2496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Bergstrom C. A., Holm R., Jorgensen S. A., Andersson S. B., Artursson P., Beato S., Borde A., Box K., Brewster M., Dressman J., Feng K. I., Halbert G., Kostewicz E., McAllister M., Muenster U., Thinnes J., Taylor R., Mullertz A.. Early pharmaceutical profiling to predict oral drug absorption: current status and unmet needs. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 57 (2014) 173-199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Saxena V., Panicucci R., Joshi Y., Garad S.. Developability assessment in pharmaceutical industry: An integrated group approach for selecting developable candidates. J. Pharm. Sci. 98 (2009) 1962-1979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Kawabata Y., Wada K., Nakatani M., Yamada S., Onoue S.. Formulation design for poorly water-soluble drugs based on biopharmaceutics classification system: basic approaches and practical applications. Int. J. Pharm. 420 (2011) 1-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Dahan A., Beig A., Lindley D., Miller J. M.. The solubility-permeability interplay and oral drug formulation design: Two heads are better than one. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 101 (2016) 99-107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Palmer D. S., Mitchell J. B.. Is experimental data quality the limiting factor in predicting the aqueous solubility of druglike molecules? Mol. Pharm. 11 (2014) 2962-2972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Avdeef A., Fuguet E., Llinàs A., Ràfols C., Bosch E., Völgyi G., Verbić T., Boldyreva E., Takács-Novák K.. Equilibrium solubility measurement of ionizable drugs – consensus recommendations for improving data quality. ADMET and DMPK 4 (2016) 117. [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Avdeef A.. Absorption and Drug Development, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2012) [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Sugano K.. Biopharmaceutics Modeling and Simulations. Wiley (2012) [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Alelyunas Y. W., Liu R., Pelosi-Kilby L., Shen C.. Application of a Dried-DMSO rapid throughput 24-h equilibrium solubility in advancing discovery candidates. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 37 (2009) 172-182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Glomme A., Marz J., Dressman J. B.. Comparison of a miniaturized shake-flask solubility method with automated potentiometric acid/base titrations and calculated solubilities. J. Pharm. Sci. 94 (2005) 1-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Sugano K., Kato T., Suzuki K., Keiko K., Sujaku T., Mano T.. High throughput solubility measurement with automated polarized light microscopy analysis. J. Pharm. Sci. 95 (2006) 2115-2122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Fagerberg J. H., Tsinman O., Sun N., Tsinman K., Avdeef A., A C.. Bergström. Dissolution rate and apparent solubility of poorly soluble drugs in biorelevant dissolution media. Mol. Pharm. 7 (2010) 1419-1430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Fagerberg J. H., Al-Tikriti Y., Ragnarsson G., Bergstrom C. A.. Ethanol effects on apparent solubility of poorly soluble drugs in simulated intestinal fluid. Mol. Pharm. 9 (2012) 1942-1952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Söderlind E., Karlsson E., Carlsson A., Kong R., Lenz A., Lindborg S., Sheng J. J.. Simulating fasted human intestinal fluids: understanding the roles of lecithin and bile acids. Mol. Pharm. 7 (2010) 1498-1507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Takano R., Sugano K., Higashida A., Hayashi Y., Machida M., Aso Y., Yamashita S.. Oral absorption of poorly water-soluble drugs: computer simulation of fraction absorbed in humans from a miniscale dissolution test. Pharm. Res. 23 (2006) 1144-1156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Clarysse S., Brouwers J., Tack J., Annaert P., Augustijns P.. Intestinal drug solubility estimation based on simulated intestinal fluids: comparison with solubility in human intestinal fluids. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 43 (2011) 260-269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Avdeef A., Tsinman O.. Miniaturized rotating disk intrinsic dissolution rate measurement: effects of buffer capacity in comparisons to traditional Wood’s apparatus. Pharm. Res. 25 (2008) 2613-2627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Avdeef A.. Solubility Temperature Dependence Predicted from 2D Structure. Admet & Dmpk 3 (2015) [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Sugano K., Hamada H., Machida M., Ushio H.. High throughput prediction of oral absorption: improvement of the composition of the lipid solution used in parallel artificial membrane permeation assay. Journal of biomolecular screening 6 (2001) 189-196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Kawakami K., Miyoshi K., Ida Y.. Impact of the amount of excess solids on apparent solubility. Pharm. Res. 22 (2005) 1537-1543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Baka E., Comer J. E., Takacs-Novak K.. Study of equilibrium solubility measurement by saturation shake-flask method using hydrochlorothiazide as model compound. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 46 (2008) 335-341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Pan L., Ho Q., Tsutsui K., Takahashi L.. Comparison of chromatographic and spectroscopic methods used to rank compounds for aqueous solubility. J. Pharm. Sci. 90 (2001) 521-529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Lindenberg M., Wiegand C., Dressman J. B.. Comparison of the adsorption of several drugs to typical filter materials. Dissolution Technologies 12 (2005) 22-25. [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Volgyi G., Csicsak D., Takacs-Novak K.. Right filter-selection for phase separation in equilibrium solubility measurement. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 123 (2018) 98-105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Palmgren J. J., Monkkonen J., Korjamo T., Hassinen A., Auriola S.. Drug adsorption to plastic containers and retention of drugs in cultured cells under in vitro conditions. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 64 (2006) 369-378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48].Fukazawa T., Yamazaki Y., Miyamoto Y.. Reduction of non-specific adsorption of drugs to plastic containers used in bioassays or analyses. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 61 (2010) 329-333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [49].Tokumura T.. A Screening System of Solubility for Drug Design and Discovery. Pharm Tech Japan 16 (2000) 19-27. [Google Scholar]
  • [50].Oki J., Watanabe D., Uekusa T., Sugano K.. Mechanism of Supersaturation Suppression in Dissolution Process of Acidic Drug Salt. Mol. Pharm. 16 (2019) 1669-1677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [51].Uekusa T., Sugano K.. Precipitation behavior of pioglitazone on the particle surface of hydrochloride salt in biorelevant media. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 161 (2018) 45-50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [52].Shoghi E., Fuguet E., Bosch E., Rafols C.. Solubility-pH profiles of some acidic, basic and amphoteric drugs. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 48 (2013) 291-300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [53].Markovic O. S., Pesic M. P., Shah A. V., Serajuddin A. T. M., Verbic T. Z., Avdeef A.. Solubility-pH profile of desipramine hydrochloride in saline phosphate buffer: Enhanced solubility due to drug-buffer aggregates. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 133 (2019) 264-274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [54].Akiyama Y., Kimoto T., Mukumoto H., Miyake S., Ito S., Taniguchi T., Nomura Y., Matsumura N., Fujita T., Sugano K.. Prediction Accuracy of Mechanism-based Oral Absorption Model for Dogs. J. Pharm. Sci. (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from ADMET & DMPK are provided here courtesy of International Association of Physical Chemists

RESOURCES