Quality guidelines for oral drug candidates: dose, solubility and lipophilicity

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 21, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 1719-1727

  Bayliss, Martin K ^a   Butler, James ^a   Feldman, Paul L ^b   Green, Darren V S ^a   Leeson, Paul D ^a,c   Palovich, Michael R ^b   Taylor, Anthony J ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^b GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^c GlaxoSmithKline 5 Moore Drive ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSORPTION PARAMETERS; CELL MEDIATED CYTOTOXICITY; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG DOSE; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG SOLUBILITY; HUMAN; LD50; LIPOPHILICITY; PERMEABILITY; PHARMACODYNAMIC PARAMETERS; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; ANIMAL; CHEMICAL PHENOMENA; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; METABOLISM; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; SOLUBILITY;

DRUG;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; ANIMALS; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; HYDROPHOBIC AND HYDROPHILIC INTERACTIONS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; SOLUBILITY;

EID: 84991690464     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: 18785832     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.07.007     Document Type: Review

References (67)

1. 1 Scannell, J.W., et al. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11 (2012), 191–200.
2. 2 Pammolli, F., et al. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 (2011), 428–438.
3. 3 Paul, S.M., et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9 (2010), 203–214.
4. 4 Munos, B., Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8 (2009), 959–968.
5. 5 Bunnage, M.E., Getting pharmaceutical R&D back on target. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7 (2011), 335–339.
6. 6 Hay, M., et al. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotech. 32 (2014), 40–52.
7. 7 Connelly, P.R., et al. Getting physical to fix pharma. Nat. Chem. 3 (2011), 692–695.
8. 8 Ringel, M., et al. Does size matter in R&D productivity? If not, what does?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12 (2013), 901–902.
9. 9 Morgan, P., et al. Can the flow of medicines be improved? Fundamental pharmacokinetic and pharmacological principles toward improving Phase II survival. Drug Discov. Today 17 (2012), 419–424.
10. 10 Bunnage, M.E., et al. Target validation using chemical probes. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9 (2013), 195–199.
11. 11 Cook, D., et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca's drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13 (2014), 419–431.
12. 12 Sacks, L.V., et al. Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000–2012. JAMA 311 (2014), 378–384.
13. 13 Dollery, C.T., Intracellular drug concentrations. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 93 (2013), 263–266.
14. 14 Mateus, A., et al. Rapid measurement of intracellular unbound drug concentrations. Mol. Pharmaceutics 10 (2013), 2467–2478.
15. 15 Blomme, E.A.G., Will, Y., Toxicology strategies for drug discovery: present and future. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 29 (2015), 473–504.
16. 16 Bowes, J., et al. Reducing safety-related drug attrition: the use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11 (2012), 909–922.
17. 17 Kleinstreuer, N.C., et al. Phenotypic screening of the ToxCast chemical library to classify toxic and therapeutic mechanisms. Nat. Biotechnol. 32 (2014), 583–591.
18. 18 Lipinski, C.A., et al. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23 (1997), 3–25.
19. 19 Hughes, J.D., et al. Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18 (2008), 4872–4875.
20. 20 Luker, T., et al. Strategies to improve in vivo toxicology outcomes for basic candidate drug molecules. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21 (2011), 5673–5679.
21. 21 Sutherland, J.J., et al. Relating molecular properties and in vitro assay results to in vivo drug disposition and toxicity outcomes. J. Med. Chem. 55 (2012), 6455–6466.
22. 22 Muthas, D., et al. A critical assessment of modeling safety-related drug Attrition. Med. Chem. Commun. 4 (2013), 1058–1065.
23. 23 Waring, M.J., et al. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14 (2015), 475–486.
24. 24 Wang, X., Greene, N., Comparing measures of promiscuity and exploring their relationship to toxicity. Mol. Informatics 31 (2012), 145–159.
25. 25 Leeson, P.D., Springthorpe, B., The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6 (2007), 881–890.
26. 26 Peters, J-U., et al. Can we discover pharmacological promiscuity early in the drug discovery process?. Drug Discov. Today 17 (2012), 325–335.
27. 27 Tarcsay, A., Keseru, G.M., Contributions of molecular properties to drug promiscuity. J. Med. Chem. 56 (2013), 1789–1795.
28. 28 Shah, F., et al. Chemotypes sensitivity and predictivity of in vivo outcomes for cytotoxic assays in THLE and HepG2 cell lines. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 24 (2014), 2753–2757.
29. 29 Wager, T.T., et al. Improving the odds of success in drug discovery: choosing the best compounds for in vivo toxicology studies. J. Med. Chem. 56 (2013), 9771–9779.
30. 30 Roberts, R.A., et al. Reducing attrition in drug development: smart loading preclinical safety assessment. Drug Discov. Today 19 (2014), 341–347.
31. 31 Gleeson, M.P., et al. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 (2011), 197–208.
32. 32 Meanwell, N.A., Improving drug candidates by design: a focus on physicochemical properties as a means of improving compound disposition and safety. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 24 (2011), 1420–1456.
33. 33 Waring, M.J., Lipophilicity in drug discovery. Exp. Opin. Drug Discov. 5 (2010), 235–248.
34. 34 Leeson, P.D., et al. Impact of ion class and time on oral drug molecular properties. MedChemComm 2 (2011), 91–105.
35. 35 Leeson, P.D., Davis, A.M., Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004), 6338–6348.
36. 36 Walters, W.P., et al. What do medicinal chemists actually make? A 50-year retrospective. J. Med. Chem. 54 (2011), 6405–6416.
37. 37 Leeson, P.D., St-Gallay, S.A., The influence of the ‘organizational factor’ on compound quality in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 (2011), 749–765.
38. 38 Wenlock, M.C., et al. A comparison of physiochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 46 (2003), 1250–1256.
39. 39 Mannhold, R., et al. Calculation of molecular lipophilicity: state-of-the-art and comparison of logP methods on more than 96,000 compounds. J. Pharm. Sci. 98 (2009), 861–893.
40. 40 Gillet, V.J., et al. Identification of biological activity profiles using substructural analysis and genetic algorithms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38 (1998), 165–179.
41. 41 Bickerton, G.R., et al. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat. Chem. 4 (2012), 90–98.
42. 42 Wager, T.T., et al. Moving beyond rules: the development of a central nervous system multiparameter optimization (CNS MPO) approach to enable alignment of druglike properties. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 1 (2010), 435–449.
43. 43 Top Prescriptions Dispensed In 2009. Available at: http://www.rxlist.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=124463.
44. 44 Novel drug approvals for 2013. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/druginnovation/ucm381263.htm.
45. 45 Hann, M.M., Keserü, G.M., Finding the sweet spot – the role of nature and nurture in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11 (2012), 355–365.
46. 46 Butler, J.M., Dressman, J.B., The developability classification system: application of biopharmaceutics concepts to formulation development. J. Pharm. Sci. 99 (2010), 4940–4954.
47. 47 Benet, L.Z., The role of BCS (biopharmaceutics classification system) and BDDCS (biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system) in drug development. J. Pharm. Sci. 102 (2013), 34–42.
48. 48 Benet, L.Z., et al. BDDCS applied to over 900 drugs. AAPS J. 13 (2011), 519–547.
49. 49 Broccatelli, F., et al. BDDCS class prediction for new molecular entities. Mol. Pharm. 9 (2012), 570–580.
50. 50 Ding, X., et al. Developability assessment of clinical drug products with maximum absorbable doses. Int. J. Pharm. 427 (2012), 260–269.
51. 51 Young, R.J., et al. Getting physical in drug discovery II: the impact of chromatographic hydrophobicity measurements and aromaticity. Drug Discov. Today 16 (2011), 822–830.
52. 52 Ritchie, T.J., et al. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability: further insights by examining carbo- and hetero-aromatic and -aliphatic ring types. Drug Discov. Today 16 (2011), 164–171.
53. 53 Hann, M.M., Molecular obesity, potency and other addictions in drug discovery. MedChemComm 2 (2011), 349–355.
54. 54 Salonen, L.M., et al. Aromatic rings in chemical and biological recognition: energetics and structures. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 50 (2011), 4808–4842.
55. 55 Nadin, A., et al. Lead-oriented synthesis: a new opportunity for synthetic chemistry. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51 (2012), 2–11.
56. 56 Roughley, S.D., Jordan, A.M., The medicinal chemist's toolbox: an analysis of reactions used in the pursuit of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 54 (2011), 3451–3479.
57. 57 Stepan, A.F., et al. Structural alert/reactive metabolite concept as applied in medicinal chemistry to mitigate the risk of idiosyncratic drug toxicity: a perspective based on the critical examination of trends in the top 200 drugs marketed in the United States. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 24 (2011), 1345–1410.
58. 58 Sakatis, M.Z., et al. Preclinical strategy to reduce clinical hepatotoxicity using in vitro bioactivation data for >200 compounds. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 25 (2012), 2067–2082.
59. 59 Chen, M., et al. High lipophilicity and high daily dose of oral medications are associated with significant risk for drug-induced liver injury. Hepatology 58 (2013), 388–396.
60. 60 Leach, A.R., Hann, M.M., Molecular complexity and fragment-based drug discovery: ten years on. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 15 (2011), 489–496.
61. 61 Weitschies, W., Oral anticancer drugs: back to square one. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 94 (2013), 441–442.
62. 62 McGinnity, D.F., et al. Evaluation of human pharmacokinetics, therapeutic dose and exposure predictions using marketed oral drugs. Curr. Drug Metab. 8 (2007), 463–479.
63. 63 Grime, K.H., et al. Application of in silico, in vitro and preclinical pharmacokinetic data for the effective and efficient prediction of human pharmacokinetics. Mol. Pharmaceutics 10 (2013), 1191–1207.
64. 64 Cumming, J.G., et al. Chemical predictive modelling to improve compound quality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12 (2013), 948–962.
65. 65 Bennani, Y.L., Drug discovery in the next decade: innovation needed ASAP. Drug Discov. Today 16 (2011), 779–792.
66. 66 Doak, B.C., et al. Oral druggable space beyond the Rule of 5: insights from drugs and clinical candidates. Chem. Biol. 21 (2014), 1115–1142.
67. 67 Gleeson, M.P., et al. Physicochemical properties and compound quality. Davis, A.M., Ward, S., (eds.) The Handbook of Medicinal; Chemistry: Principles and Practice, 2015, 1–31 Royal Society of Chemistry, Chapter 1.