Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 47, Issue 25, 2004, Pages 6338-6348

  Leeson, Paul D ^a   Davis, Andrew M ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; ANTIALLERGIC AGENT; ANTIARRHYTHMIC AGENT; ANTIASTHMATIC AGENT; ANTICONVULSIVE AGENT; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; ANTIEMETIC AGENT; ANTIHISTAMINIC AGENT; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; ANTILIPEMIC AGENT; ANTIMIGRAINE AGENT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ANTIOBESITY AGENT; ANTIPARKINSON AGENT; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT; ANTITHROMBOCYTIC AGENT; ANTITUSSIVE AGENT; ANTIULCER AGENT; ANXIOLYTIC AGENT; CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS; DIURETIC AGENT; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; MUSCLE RELAXANT AGENT; NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; SPASMOLYTIC AGENT; UNINDEXED DRUG; VASODILATOR AGENT;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DRUG DETERMINATION; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TARGETING; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; HYDROGEN BOND; LIPOPHILICITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PUBLICATION; SURFACE PROPERTY; TABLET SURFACE; TIME;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; ANTI-INFECTIVE AGENTS; CARDIOVASCULAR AGENTS; CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL; HYDROGEN BONDING; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; SOLUBILITY; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 9744232909     PISSN: 00222623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jm049717d     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Frantz, S. 2003 Approvals: A Year Of Innovation and Upward Trends. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2004, 3, 103-105.
2. Source: 1999-2001 data from Centre for Medicines Research, International Institute for Regulatory Science.
3. Reviews: (a) Muegge, I. Selection Criteria For Drug-Like Compounds. Med. Res. Rev. 2003, 23, 302-321.
4. (b) Egan, W. J.; Walters, W. P.; Murcko, M. A. Guiding Molecules Towards Drug-Likeness. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2002, 5, 540-549.
5. (c) Lajiness, M. S.; Vieth, M.; Erickson, J. Molecular Properties That Influence Oral Drug-Like Behavior. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2004, 7, 470-477.
6. Takaoka, Y.; Endo, Y.; Yamanobe, S.; Kakinuma, H.; Okubo, T.; Shimazaki, Y.; Ota, T.; Sumiya, S.; Yoshikawa, K. Development of a Method for Evaluating Drug-Likeness and Ease of Synthesis Using a Data Set in Which Compounds Are Assigned Scores Based on Chemists' Intuition. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1269-1275.
7. 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. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 1997, 23, 3-25.
8. Burton, P. S.; Goodwin, J. T.; Vidmar, T. J.; Amore, B. M. Predicting Drug Absorption: How Nature Made It a Difficult Problem. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2002, 303, 889-895.
9. Wenlock, M. C.; Austin, R. P.; Barton, P.; Davis, A. M.; Leeson, P. D. A Comparison of Physiochemical Property Profiles of Development and Marketed Oral Drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 1250-1256.
10. Vieth, M.; Siegel, M. G.; Higgs, R. E.; Watson, I. A.; Robertson, D. H.; Savin, K. A.; Durst, G. L.; Hipskind, P. A. Characteristic Physical Properties and Structural Fragments of Marketed Oral Drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 224-232.
11. Van De Waterbeemd, H.; Smith, D. A.; Beaumont, K.; Walker, D. K. Property-Based Design: Optimization of Drug Absorption and Pharmacokinetics. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1313-1333.
12. Van De Waterbeemd, H.; Jones, B. C. Predicting Oral Absorption and Bioavailability. Prog. Med. Chem. 2003, 4, 1-59.
13. (a) Blake, J. F. Examination of the Computed Molecular Properties of Compounds Selected for Clinical Development. BioTechniques 2003, Suppl., 16-20.
14. (b) Oprea, T. I. Current Trends in Lead Discovery: Are We Looking for the Appropriate Properties? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 325-334.
15. Kubinyi, H. Opinion: Drug Research: Myths, Hype and Reality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2003, 2, 665-668.
16. Veber, D. F.; Johnson, S. R.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Smith, B. R.; Ward, K. W.; Kopple, K. D. Molecular Properties That Influence the Oral Bioavailability of Drug Candidates. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2615-2623.
17. Sakaeda, T.; Okamura, N.; Nagata, S.; Yagami, T.; Horinouchi, M.; Okumura, K.; Yamashita, F.; Hashida, M. Molecular and Pharmacokinetic Properties of 222 Commercially Available Oral Drugs in Humans. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2001, 24, 935-940.
18. Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry; Doherty, A., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 2003; Vol. 38, pp 425-441 (lists 1983-2002 NCEs from the "To Market, To Market" chapters of previous volumes).
19. (a) Cramer, R. D., III. BC(DEF) Parameters. 1. The Intrinsic Dimensionality of Intermolecular Interactions in the Liquid State. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 1837-1849.
20. (b) Van De Waterbeemd, H.; Smith, D. A.; Jones, B. C. Lipophilicity in PK Design: Methyl, Ethyl, Futile. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 273-286.
21. Abraham, M. H.; Chadha, H. S.; Martins, F.; Mitchell, R. C.; Bradbury, M. W.; Gratton, J. A. Hydrogen Bonding Part 46: A Review of the Correlation and Prediction of Transport Properties by an LFER Method: Physicochemical Properties, Brain Penetration and Skin Permeability. Pestic. Sci. 1999, 55, 78-88.
22. (a) Navia, M. A.; Chaturvedi, P. R. Design Principles for Orally Bioavailable Drugs. Drug Discovery Today 1996, 1, 179-189.
23. (b) Chan, O. H.; Stewart, B. H. Physicochemical and Drug Delivery Considerations for Oral Drug Bioavailability. Drug Discovery Today 1996, 1, 461-473.
24. Hansch, C.; Hoekman, D.; Leo, A.; Weininger, D.; Selassie, C. D. Chem-Bioinformatics: Comparative QSAR at the Interface between Chemistry and Biology. Chem. Rev. 2002, 102, 783-812. See Pomona Database of QSARs: Http://Clogp.Pomona.Edu/Medchem/Chem/Qsar-Db/Index.Html-Topic_Searching.
25. Hansch, C.; Bjoerkroth, J. P.; Leo, A. Hydrophobicity and Central Nervous System Agents: On the Principle of Minimal Hydrophobicity in Drug Design. J. Pharm. Sci. 1987, 76, 663-87.
26. Lewis, D. F. V.; Dickins, M. Baseline Lipophilicity Relationships in Human Cytochromes P450 Associated with Drug Metabolism. Drug Metab. Rev. 2003, 35, 1-18.
27. Keseru, G. M. Prediction of hERG Potassium Channel Affinity by Traditional and Hologram QSAR Methods. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2003, 13, 2773-2775.
28. Goodwin, J. T.; Conradi, R. A.; Ho, N. F. H.; Burton, P. S. Physicochemical Determinants of Passive Membrane Permeability: Role of Solute Hydrogen-Bonding Potential and Volume. J Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 3721-3729.
29. (a) Zhao, Y. H.; Abraham, M. H.; Hersey, A.; Luscombe, C. N. Quantitative Relationship between Rat Intestinal Absorption and Abraham Descriptors. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 38, 939-947.
30. (b) Zhao, Y. H.; Abraham, M. H.; Le, J.; Hersey, A.; Luscombe, C. N.; Beck, G.; Sherborne, B.; Cooper, I. Rate-Limited Steps of Human Oral Absorption and QSAR Studies. Pharm. Res. 2002, 19, 1446-1457.
31. Abraham, M. H.; Chadha, H. S.; Whiting, G. S.; Mitchell, R. C. Hydrogen Bonding. 32. An Analysis of Water-Octanol and Water-Alkane Partitioning and the Delta Log P Parameter of Seiler. J. Pharm. Sci. 1994, 83, 1085-100.
32. Teague, S. J.; Davis, A. M.; Leeson, P. D.; Oprea, T. The Design of Leadlike Combinatorial Libraries. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 3743-3748.
33. Oprea, T. I.; Davis, A. M.; Teague, S. J.; Leeson, P. D. Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1308-1315.
34. Hann, M. M.; Leach, A. R.; Harper, G. Molecular Complexity and Its Impact on the Probability of Finding Leads for Drug Discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 856-864.
35. Rishton, G. M. Nonleadlikeness and Leadlikeness in Biochemical Screening. Drug Discovery Today 2003, 8, 86-96.
36. Lipinski, C. A. Drug-Like Properties and the Causes of Poor Solubility and Poor Permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 2001, 44, 235-249. See also http://www.pharmalabauto.com/Solubility/Presentations/presentations.html for a number of related presentations by the author.
37. (a) Kelder, J.; Grootenhuis, P. D. J.; Bayada, D. M.; Delbressine, L. P. C.; Ploemen, J.-P. Polar Molecular Surface as a Dominating Determinant for Oral Absorption and Brain Penetration of Drugs. Pharm. Res. 1999, 16, 1514-1519.
38. (b) Hou, T. J.; Xu, X. J. ADME Evaluation in Drug Discovery. 3. Modeling Blood-Brain Barrier Partitioning Using Simple Molecular Descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 2137-2152 and references therein.
39. (c) Doan, K. M. M.; Humphreys, J. E.; Webster, L. O.; Wring, S. A.; Shampine, L. J.; Serabjit-Singh, C. J.; Adkison, K. K.; Polli, J. W. Passive Permeability and P-Glycoprotein-Mediated Efflux Differentiate Central Nervous System (CNS) and Non-CNS Marketed Drugs. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2002, 303, 1029-1037.
40. Proudfoot, J. R. Drugs, Leads, and Drug-Likeness: An Analysis of Some Recently Launched Drugs. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2002, 12, 1647-1650.
41. From the list in ref 1, there are an additional 8 oral drugs approved for the first time in the U.S. in 2003 that are not included in this study (miglustat, epinastine, tadalafil, gefitinib, rosuvastatin, vardenafil, aprepitant, and atazanavir). The mean (median) physical property values for these 8 drugs show increases in physical properties relative to 1983-2002 oral drugs: Mol Wt 440 (464); cLogP 3.12 (2.85); O + N 7.75 (7) and OH + NH 2.38 (2). Their inclusion in the analysis does not alter the conclusions reached in this paper.
42. Hann, M. M.; Oprea, T. I. Pursuing the Leadlikeness Concept in Pharmaceutical Research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2004, 8, 255-263.
43. (a) Rees, D. C.; Congreve, M.; Murray, C. W.; Carr, R. Fragment-based Lead Discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2004, 3, 660-672.
44. (b) Erlanson, D. A.; McDowell, R. S.; O'Brien, T. Fragment-Based Drug Discovery. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 3463-3482.
45. Kuntz, I. D.; Chen, K.; Sharp, K. A.; Kollman, P. A. The Maximal Affinity of Ligands. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96, 9997-10002.