The absorption of poorly water-soluble drugs is influenced by the luminal gastrointestinal fluid content and composition, which control solubility. Simulated intestinal fluids have been introduced into dissolution testing including endogenous amphiphiles and digested lipids at physiological levels; however, in vivo individual variation exists in the concentrations of these components, which will alter drug absorption through an effect on solubility. The use of a factorial design of experiment and varying media by introducing different levels of bile, lecithin, and digested lipids has been previously reported, but here we investigate the solubility variation of poorly soluble drugs through more complex biorelevant amphiphile interactions. A four-component mixture design was conducted to understand the solubilization capacity and interactions of bile salt, lecithin, oleate, and monoglyceride with a constant total concentration (11.7 mM) but varying molar ratios. The equilibrium solubility of seven low solubility acidic (zafirlukast), basic (aprepitant, carvedilol), and neutral (fenofibrate, felodipine, griseofulvin, and spironolactone) drugs was investigated. Solubility results are comparable with literature values and also our own previously published design of experiment studies. Results indicate that solubilization is not a sum accumulation of individual amphiphile concentrations, but a drug specific effect through interactions of mixed amphiphile compositions with the drug. This is probably due to a combined interaction of drug characteristics; for example, lipophilicity, molecular shape, and ionization with amphiphile components, which can generate specific drug-micelle affinities. The proportion of each component can have a remarkable influence on solubility with, in some cases, the highest and lowest points close to each other. A single-point solubility measurement in a fixed composition simulated media or human intestinal fluid sample will therefore provide a value without knowledge of the surrounding solubility topography meaning that variability may be overlooked. This study has demonstrated how the amphiphile ratios influence drug solubility and highlights the importance of the envelope of physiological variation when simulating in vivo drug behavior.
The absorption of poorly water-soluble drugs is influenced by the luminal gastrointestinal fluid content and composition, which control solubility. Simulated intestinal fluids have been introduced into dissolution testing including endogenous amphiphiles and digested lipids at physiological levels; however, in vivo individual variation exists in the concentrations of these components, which will alter drug absorption through an effect on solubility. The use of a factorial design of experiment and varying media by introducing different levels of bile, lecithin, and digested lipids has been previously reported, but here we investigate the solubility variation of poorly soluble drugs through more complex biorelevant amphiphile interactions. A four-component mixture design was conducted to understand the solubilization capacity and interactions of bile salt, lecithin, oleate, and monoglyceride with a constant total concentration (11.7 mM) but varying molar ratios. The equilibrium solubility of seven low solubility acidic (zafirlukast), basic (aprepitant, carvedilol), and neutral (fenofibrate, felodipine, griseofulvin, and spironolactone) drugs was investigated. Solubility results are comparable with literature values and also our own previously published design of experiment studies. Results indicate that solubilization is not a sum accumulation of individual amphiphile concentrations, but a drug specific effect through interactions of mixed amphiphile compositions with the drug. This is probably due to a combined interaction of drug characteristics; for example, lipophilicity, molecular shape, and ionization with amphiphile components, which can generate specific drug-micelle affinities. The proportion of each component can have a remarkable influence on solubility with, in some cases, the highest and lowest points close to each other. A single-point solubility measurement in a fixed composition simulated media or human intestinal fluid sample will therefore provide a value without knowledge of the surrounding solubility topography meaning that variability may be overlooked. This study has demonstrated how the amphiphile ratios influence drug solubility and highlights the importance of the envelope of physiological variation when simulating in vivo drug behavior.
The in vivo bioavailability of orally administered
drugs is influenced by the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) through several
factors including solubility, dissolution, intestinal permeability,
and metabolism.[1] For poorly soluble drugs,
an important factor is solubility, which in the gastrointestinal tract
is influenced by the variable composition of the intestinal fluid[2] either due to natural biological variation[3,4] or changes from a fasted to a fed state after eating.[5]
Development of Simulated
Intestinal Fluid
To imitate the in vivo solubility
behavior in vitro, simulated intestinal fluids representing
the fasted
(FaSSIF) and fed (FeSSIF) states were developed by employing known
physiologically relevant conditions (e.g., pH) and concentrations
of components (e.g., bile salt and lecithin).[1,6] Over
time several studies have modified the original recipes to more closely
mimic the available physiological data; for example, pH, osmolality,
surface tension, and the in vitro behavior of poorly
soluble drugs in sampled human intestinal fluid. In fasted simulated
media, for example (Table ), the biorelevant surfactants bile salt and lecithin can
affect the solubility and dissolution of poorly soluble drugs,[7] and changes to the bile salt and phospholipid
concentrations were introduced. Further studies examined the impact
of pure bile salts and osmolality adjusting agents[8] along with different concentrations of components[9] at the extremes of the known ranges. An updated
fasted recipe (FaSSIF-V2) was introduced reducing the concentration
of lecithin to 0.2 mM, which increased the bile salt/lecithin ratio
to 15:1, along with adjustment to mimic the in vivo osmolality.[10] Further data from the analysis
of human intestinal fluids suggested the presence and influence of
free fatty acids and cholesterol,[11,12] and a modification
to include these (FaSSIF-V2-plus) was developed. The bile salt/lecithin
ratio can be quite variable among individuals,[13] with ranges from 2.5:1 to 15:1 in fasted and fed states,
although the fed state variation was generally smaller.[4,14,15] A further updated version of
FaSSIF media has recently been proposed and investigated (FASSIF-V3)
with various prototypes of this media being constructed with the addition
or exclusion of different bile salts and cholesterol.[16]
Table 1
Literature Composition of Fasted Simulated
Intestinal Fluid
Sunesen
et al., 2005[9]
component/parameter
and concentration (mM)
Dressman et al., 1998[1]
Galia e al., 1998[6]
Pedersen et
al., 2000[7]
Vertzoni et al., 2004[8]
low
high
Jantratid et al., 2008[10] V2
Psachoulias et al.,
2012[11] V2-plus
Fuchs et al., 2015[16] V3 GC/TC-Chol
sodium TC
5
3
3
2.5
6.3
3
3
1.4
sodium GC
3.7
1.4
lecithin
1.5
0.75
0.9
0.75
0.5
1.25
0.2
0.2
0.035
lysolecithin
0.315
sodium oleate
0.56
0.315
cholesterol
0.2
0.2
NaH2PO4
(K)
29
(K) 28.6
50
28.66
(K) 29
(K) 29
13.51
NaOH
qs
qs
∼13.8
34.8
3.19
NaCl
(K) 220
(K) 103.3
150 (total Na)
106
no salt (KCl)
no salt (KCl)
68.62
91.62
pancreatin
100 U/mL
tris/maleic acid
19.12
osmolality (mOsmol)
280–310
270 ± 10
270 ± 10
180 ± 10
220 ± 10
pH
6.8
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.8
6.8
6.5
6.7 ± 0.05
Human Intestinal Fluid
Research into
human intestinal fluid is hampered by the anatomical difficulty of
sampling via a nasal or oral catheter; however, concomitant research
to the development of the simulated fluids has continuously expanded
and refined knowledge around the composition and properties of this
complex biological material. This has permitted an ever expanding
analysis of the physicochemical properties of the fluid,[3,4] providing compositional data on both the fasted and fed states[5,15] and samples for solubility determinations.[17] The solubility behavior of poorly water-soluble drugs is dependent
upon fluid composition especially the biorelevant surfactants such
as bile salt, lecithin, free fatty acid, and monolgyceride.[18,19] Recent ultrastructural characterization indicates that intestinal
fluid is composed of a range of micellar, vesicular, colloidal, and
lipid droplet systems with the ratio of each system dependent upon
the composition and fed or fasted state.[20] Human intestinal fluid therefore represents a complex multicomponent
media where any one component or combination of components has the
possibility to influence drug solubility.
Simulated
Intestinal Media Solubility
The application in vitro of fixed recipe simulated
intestinal media only provides a single-point solubility measurement
and cannot represent in vivo variability of intestinal
fluid composition and solubility throughout this complex space. A
number of studies have approached the impact of the variation of intestinal
media component concentrations on solubility, for example, the solubility
of danazol has been linearly related to bile salt concentration[7] in sampled human intestinal fluid and solubility
of multiple poorly soluble drugs linked to a “complex interplay”
of factors.[5] The solubility of poorly soluble
drugs is also known to vary between the different simulated media
recipes sometimes by almost an order of magnitude.[16,21] A statistical exploration using a fractional factorial design of
experiment (DoE) of the solubility effect of the measured human intestinal
fluid ranges of various factors in fasted, and fed media[22,23] indicates that a two or three log variation in solubility is possible.
The DoE studies highlighted that media pH is a major driver for the
solubility of ionizable drugs, especially acidic, while for all drugs,
buffer, salt, and pancreatin had no or limited impact. For poorly
soluble basic or nonionizable drugs, biorelevant surfactants and complex
drug specific interactions between combinations of factors were important.
A similar hypothesis was presented by Clarysse and colleagues that
shows the amphiphilic contents play a major role in nonionized drugs
(danazol, nifedipine), while pH has a greater influence on the solubility
range for ionizable drugs (diazepam).[5] The
DoE studies also suggested interesting drug specific solubility variations
induced by media components;[22,23] however, the experimental
approach did not visualize the subtle interplay of component concentrations
and ratios on solubility.
Four Component Mixture
Design
To
investigate and visualize potential interactions between the biorelevant
amphiphiles bile salt, lecithin, oleate, and monoglyceride on the
solubilization capacity of simulated intestinal fluids, we have conducted
a solubility study in which the total amphiphile concentration is
maintained at a physiological concentration equal to the fasted simulated
intestinal media. This was performed as a four-component mixture design
(4MD) equilibrium solubility study consisting of the four aforementioned
amphiphiles at various molar ratios, but with a constant total molar
concentration (11.7 mM) representing the fasted state.[22] 4MD has been previously applied to investigate
the phase behavior of phospholipids[24] in
cell membranes but have not been applied to intestinal fluid mixtures.
Only Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) Class II drugs,
which exhibited remarkably high magnitudes of solubility in the presence
of oleate, lecithin, and bile salt, were selected from the previous
studies,[22,23] with representative acid, base, and neutral
drugs (Table ). Based
on published DoE studies,[22,23] the behavior of oleate
in the 4MD will depend on solution pH, and in order to eliminate this
effect, the 4MD was only conducted at pH 7 where oleate will be predominantly
ionized. The buffer and salt concentrations were also kept at biorelevant
levels identical to the previous DoE, which demonstrated that they
do not influence solubility. The 4MD has not previously been applied
to this problem and will provide a direct visualization of the solubility
profile within the media component space investigated.
Table 2
Physicochemical Properties and Molecular
Structures of Drugs Used in 4MD[43444546]
ACD classic calculated values: www.acdlabs.com.
ACD classic calculated values: www.acdlabs.com.
Materials
and Methods
Materials
Hydrochloric acid (HCl),
potassium hydroxide (KOH), acetic acid, sodium dihydrogen orthophosphate
(NaH2PO4), sodium chloride (NaCl), chloroform,
griseofulvin, spironolactone, and fenofibrate were sourced from Sigma-Aldrich,
U.K. Aprepitant, carvedilol, felodipine, and zafirlukast were kindly
provided through the OrBiTo initiative through Dr R. Holm, Head of
Preformulation, Lundbeck, Denmark. The four amphiphiles in this particular
study will be denoted as BS, PL, OA, and MG. Sodium taurocholate (BS)
was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich; Lecithin S PC (phosphatidylcholine
from Soybean “98%”, PL) was purchased from Lipoid, Germany;
sodium oleate (OA) was obtained from BDH Chemical Ltd. Poole England;
monoglyceride (MG) was a gift from Croda International. All water
used was ultrapure Milli-Q water. Methanol and acetonitrile were HPLC
grade (VWR, U.K.), and ammonium acetate was obtained from Merck, Germany.
Mixture Design and Equilibrium Solubility
Measurements
From the previous DoE, the combinations of BS,
PL, and OA are displayed in Table . A medium total amphiphile concentration (11.7 mM)
was chosen for the 4MD study. 4MD contained 39 compositions in the
tetrahedron contour plot, including four compositions inside the tetrahedron
and 35 compositions on the four surfaces of the tetrahedron. Each
face represented a phase with the absence of one of the four amphiphiles,
and therefore, the four faces are represented as BS/PL/OA, BS/PL/MG,
BS/OA/MG, and PL/OA/MG. Each face had 15 combinations, with five points
on the side shared by two faces (Figure ). The concentrations were given in mol %
of the total molar concentration. The water content was more than
99 wt % for all the compositions, indicating this was a dilute system.
Table 3
Concentration (mM) of Three Amphiphiles
Used in the Previous DoE Based on Physiological Levels
DOE
BS
PL
FA
total concentration
1
1.5
0.2
0.5
2.2
2
1.5
1
0.5
3
3
5.9
0.2
0.5
6.6
4
5.9
1
0.5
7.4
5
1.5
0.2
10
11.7
6
1.5
1
10
12.5
7
5.9
0.2
10
16.1
8
5.9
1
10
16.9
Figure 1
Solubility
contour plot determined by the 4-component mixture design
(4MD) experiment. The main triangle consists of four smaller triangles
representing the four surfaces of the tetrahedron when open from the
top vertex, which is 100 mol % BS. The color shades attached to individual
figures represent the solubility contour concentration (mM) values
for each drug, note solubility ranges vary. In panel a, 4MD measurement
points, red line indicates media containing BS/PL ratio of 4/1, representing
FaSSIF, and the blue line indicates media with ratio of 15/1, representing
FaSSIF II (see Table ). BS, bile salt; OA, sodium oleate; MG, glyceryl monooleate; PL,
soya phosphatidyl choline.
Solubility
contour plot determined by the 4-component mixture design
(4MD) experiment. The main triangle consists of four smaller triangles
representing the four surfaces of the tetrahedron when open from the
top vertex, which is 100 mol % BS. The color shades attached to individual
figures represent the solubility contour concentration (mM) values
for each drug, note solubility ranges vary. In panel a, 4MD measurement
points, red line indicates media containing BS/PL ratio of 4/1, representing
FaSSIF, and the blue line indicates media with ratio of 15/1, representing
FaSSIF II (see Table ). BS, bile salt; OA, sodium oleate; MG, glyceryl monooleate; PL,
soya phosphatidyl choline.The 4MD was constructed using
Minitab 16.0 and simplex lattice
with four component input. The lattice incorporated four variables,
and the design was augmented with axial points, which included points
in the center of the tetrahedron rather than just the surface. The
solubility data were analyzed in Minitab 16.0 to fit into quadratic
and special cubic models. Solubility data was also fit into multiple
ternary contour plots with smoothing.Phosphate buffer containing
68 mM NaCl and 45 mM NaH2PO4 was prepared with
deionized water and pH adjusted
to 7. Stock solutions at 11.7 mM of BS and OA were freshly prepared
from solids by dissolving in the phosphate buffer. The PL stock solution
was prepared by dissolving lipid in chloroform, removing the chloroform
by evaporation under nitrogen, and dispersing the dried PL film into
phosphate buffer. MG cannot dissolve in buffer, so the stock MG was
prepared by mixing BS (1 mM) and MG (10.7 mM) making a total concentration
of 11.7 mM, and for practical experimental reasons, this solution
was employed as 100 mol % MG. The required 4MD media was prepared
from the stock solutions and equilibrium solubility determined in
duplicate.An excess amount of solid drug was then added to
4 mL of each mixed
lipid media in Corning 15 mL centrifuge tubes and then placed on a
rotating wheel mixer for 1 h. If required the pH was adjusted back
to 7. Tubes were then placed on the mixer and equilibrated at 37 °C
for 24 h, pH being checked after incubation. This time frame and procedures
have previously been shown to provide equilibrium solubility.[22] The saturated supernatant was separated by centrifugation
at 13,000 rpm for 5 min and transferred for HPLC analysis using an
Agilent Technologies 1260 Series Liquid Chromatography system with
Clarity Chromatography software. Individual HPLC conditions are presented
in Table .
Table 4
HPLC Assay Conditions[15,31]a
drug
mobile phase
column
flow rate (mL/min)
injection volume (μL)
detection (nm)
retention time (min)
r2
aprepitant
ACN/0.05 M ammonium acetate (60:40) pH 4.5
2
1
10
220
2.2
1.0000
carvedilol
ACN/0.05 M ammonium acetate (55:45) pH 4
2
1
10
243
2.2
0.9993
felodipine
methanol/water(75:25, v/v)
2
1
20
260
5
0.9999
fenofibrate
ACN/water (70:30 v/v)
1
1
100
291
3
1.0000
griseofulvin
ACN/water (50:50 v/v)
2
0.5
10
291
3.7
0.9970
spironolactone
ACN/water (50:50 v/v)
1
1
10
238
3
1.0000
zafirlukast
ACN/10 mM phosphate buffer pH 6 50:50
1
1
10
245
2.2
0.9989
Column 1: Speck
and Burke ODS-H
optimal 150 × 30 mm id 5 μm. Column 2: Agilent Polaris
5 C18-A 150 × 4.6 MM id 5 μm. ACN, acetonitrile; TFA, trifluoroacetic
acid.
Column 1: Speck
and Burke ODS-H
optimal 150 × 30 mm id 5 μm. Column 2: Agilent Polaris
5 C18-A 150 × 4.6 MM id 5 μm. ACN, acetonitrile; TFA, trifluoroacetic
acid.For the BS/PL/OA mixture
design surface only, the zeta potential
of each of the mixed samples was measured by using Malvern clear disposable
zeta cell (DTS 1060C) on a Malvern Zetasizer Nano instrument. Results
indicate that drug loading did not markedly affect the measured zeta
potentials of the mixed solutions (data not shown).
Results
Equilibrium Solubility
Figure b–h presents the solubility
contour plots determined by the 4MD experiment for each drug (excluding
the data points inside the tetrahedron) for an aqueous system containing
a total amphiphile concentration at 11.7 mM. The main triangle consists
of four smaller triangles representing the four faces (where each
face is a ternary contour plot with the absence of one of the four
amphiphiles) of the tetrahedron when open from the top vertex, which
is 100 mol % BS. The color shades indicate solubility differences,
with black representing the highest solubility and white the lowest.
From Figure b–h,
it is evident that each of the seven drugs has a unique profile, none
have identical high solubility zones, and that the extent and variability
of solubility is different for each drug. The individual solubility
data points on the tetrahedron’s faces for each drug in the
4MD analysis are presented in Figure ; the fifth column displays the additional four points
inside the tetrahedron, which involve all amphiphiles. These data
show interesting differences; for example, the solubility of spironolactone
and griseofulvin varies in a narrow range, while others (i.e., carvedilol)
show a 250-fold variation. This demonstrates that for each drug the
four faces almost reflect the same range of drug solubility, with
a few exceptions that did not cover the lower solubility points. Specifically,
the BS/PL/OA combination for carvedilol did not cover solubility below
0.1 mM, while the other three faces have. Examination of the points
inside the tetrahedron, which include all four amphiphiles, did not
reveal a greater extent of solubility variability. Additionally, it
is noted that each drug shows a different behavior with regard to
the contribution of the four biorelevant amphiphiles, for example,
the solubility of zafirlukast only increases when the proportion of
PL increases, while carvedilol solubility is sensitive to OA concentration.
In the case of fenofibrate and felodipine, the four amphiphiles in
combination would provide better solubility (Figure and Table ).
Figure 2
Equilibrium solubility measurements of 4MD. (green) Reported
solubility
values for each drug in HIF, (red) reported solubility values for
each drugs in FaSSIF II media, and (black) reported solubility values
for each drug in FaSSIF I media; all values are from refs (2) and (18). Equilibrium solubility
of each drug in media with the absence of one amphiphile (four surfaces
of the tetrahedron, named after the amphiphile initials; for example,
BPO represents media containing BS, PL, and OA, with no addition of
MG), and “mid” represents media in combination of four
amphiphiles, which are therefore inside the tetrahedron.
Table 5
Composition (Molar Ratio of Amphiphiles)
of Media with the Highest and Lowest Three Solubilities of Each Drug
aprepitant
griseofulvin
felodipine
fenofibrate
spironolactone
zafirlukast
carvedilol
high solubility zone
75% PL, 25% OA
25% MG, 75% OA
25%
MG and PL, 50% OA
12.5% BS, MG, and PL, 62.5% OA
25% MG, 75% OA
25% MG, 75% OA
25%
PL, 75% OA
25% MG and PL, 50% OA
12.5% BS, MG, and PL, 62.5% OA
25% BS and PL, 50% OA
75% PL, 25% OA
25% BS and OA, 50% PL
100% PL
25% BS, 75% OA
50%
MG, 50% OA
75% PL, 25% OA
50% BS, 50%
PL
12.5% BS, PL, and OA, 62.5% MG
25%
BS, 75% OA
50% MG, 50% OA
100% OA
low solubility zone
100%
PL
100% PL
100% PL
100%
BS
25% BS, 75% PL
100% MG
100% MG
100% BS
100% MG
100% BS
100% MG
100% MG
25% BS, 75% OA
75% MG, 25% OA
75% BS, 25% OA
25% BS and PL, 50% MG
100% MG
75% BS, 25% OA
75% MG, 25% OA
25% BS and MG, 50% PL
50% MG, 50% OA
Equilibrium solubility measurements of 4MD. (green) Reported
solubility
values for each drug in HIF, (red) reported solubility values for
each drugs in FaSSIF II media, and (black) reported solubility values
for each drug in FaSSIF I media; all values are from refs (2) and (18). Equilibrium solubility
of each drug in media with the absence of one amphiphile (four surfaces
of the tetrahedron, named after the amphiphile initials; for example,
BPO represents media containing BS, PL, and OA, with no addition of
MG), and “mid” represents media in combination of four
amphiphiles, which are therefore inside the tetrahedron.
Statistical
Analysis
The standardized
effect value for each amphiphile can be calculated by dividing coefficient
with standard error, which is similar to a p-value and thus indicates
the effects in the model that are statistically significant (Figure a-c). There is no
p-value generated for each 100% amphiphile (single terms), but only
standardized effect values to show the magnitude. The standardized
effect values of each single amphiphile are closely related with the
solubility in the media that has 100 mol % of that amphiphile, thus
the higher the value, the higher the solubility within the pure amphiphile.
OA exhibits the highest influence on solubility for six out of seven
drugs, while BS and MG have the least solubilization effect on their
own. For two amphiphile interactions (Figure b), 17 out of a possible 40 two combinations
had a statistically significant positive standardized effect on solubility
and three had a statistically significant negative standardized effect
on solubility, with more than half of the possible amphiphile interactions
not significantly influencing solubility. For example, MG with OA
negatively affects carvedilol solubility, MG with PL negatively impacts
zafirlukast solubility and BS with OA negatively impacts griseofulvin
solubility. The three amphiphile interactions (Figure c) are only statistically significant in
nine out of 20 eight possible occurrences and eight of these have
a negative effect on solubility with the combination of MG/BS/PL negatively
impacting four out of the seven drugs. Except for zafirlukast, OA
exhibited a dominantly significant positive effect for all drugs.
Aprepitant is positively affected by MG while the other drugs, zafirlukast
and carvedilol are not and the PL/MG negatively impacts zafirlukast
in contrast to carvedilol and aprepitant. OA has a marked effect on
carvedilol, and the presence of MG in the media reduces its solubility.
Figure 3
Standardized
effect values of (a) individual amphiphiles for each
drug; (b) two-amphiphile interactions; (c) three-amphiphile interactions;
and (d) each drug. Factors/interactions are in decreasing order of
magnitude. Bars over the dashed line show statistical significance.
Standardized
effect values of (a) individual amphiphiles for each
drug; (b) two-amphiphile interactions; (c) three-amphiphile interactions;
and (d) each drug. Factors/interactions are in decreasing order of
magnitude. Bars over the dashed line show statistical significance.Minitab fits the data
generated from the design of mixtures into
quadratic and special cubic models; however, the determinant coefficient r2 (<0.8) is not significant for any of the
drugs. This indicates that the predictors (amphiphile ratio/concentration)
in the model are not sufficient to explain the solubility variation
of the drugs. Drug induced drug–micelle interaction is also
a possible factor,[14] which was not included
in the model due to the limited drug property diversities. A simple
linear correlation to fit the total ratio (x, expressed
as mol proportion of the total 11.7 mol) of one to two of the amphiphiles
and the drug solubility (y, mM) was attempted. However,
only the BS ratio has a negative linear relationship with aprepitant
(r2 = 0.7164) and fenofibrate (r2 = 0.716). Only two out of 28 possibilities
showed linearity, which indicates the nonlinear nature of the analysis,
and these results suggest that the systems undergo a more complicated
interaction between the amphiphiles and the drugs rather than simply
a sum of solubilization capacity of individual components.Vertices,
which represent single amphiphile dominated media, tend
to show poor solubilization capabilities (Table and Figure ). For example, the vertex representing 100 mol % BS
generally is light in color indicating lower drug solubility, implying
that a high ratio of BS alone did not show any solubilization advantages
for these drugs. Similarly, according to Table , 100 mol % PL is in the low solubility zone
of fenofibrate, aprepitant, and felodipine, and 100 mol % MG is in
the low solubility zone of fenofibrate, zafirlukast and carvedilol.
The only exception is that 100 mol % lecithin is in the high solubility
zone of zafirlukast. Interestingly, apart from high solubility zones,
carvedilol and zafirlukast illustrate extensive low solubility zones
(Figure and Table ) where the amphiphile
composition exhibits unfavorable solubilization.
Discussion
The equilibrium
solubility data of each drug’s 4MD correspond with literature
solubility values in fasted human or simulated intestinal fluids (Figure ) and is comparable
to the published fasted DoE.[22] The results
also indicate that two (spironolactone and griseofulvin) out of seven
drugs tested have comparatively constant solubility across the tetrahedron
in agreement with their relative insensitivity to changes in the fasted
DoE media.[22] For the other five drugs, Figures and 2 indicate that with the same total amphiphile concentration
the proportion of each component can have a remarkable influence on
solubility with, in some cases, the highest and lowest solubility
points close to each other (Table ). The low solubility of carvedilol in BS rich systems
also agrees with literature reports that BS has a negative impact
on carvedilol solubility behavior.[22,25] PL and MG
are both poorly dispersible in aqueous buffer without the other solubilization
agents such as BS,[26] and Table shows that generally 100 mol
% PL and 100 mol % MG media provide very poor solubilization. However,
PL exhibited excellent solubilization for aprepitant, felodipine,
and fenofibrate, provided that an appropriate ratio of BS or OA (see Table ) was present. These
similarities to literature data indicate that the 4MD is exploring
a relevant solubility space for fasted simulated media and exhibiting
properties similar to previously published studies. However, the current
4MD study utilized a series of media containing the same total concentration
of biorelevant amphiphiles but encompassing changing ratios, a situation
that has not previously been systematically examined.Several
papers have reported the concentration-dependent solubilizing capacity
of different biorelevant amphiphiles or combinations of amphiphiles
for drugs in simulated intestinal fluids. For danazol and probucol,
a linear relationship between solubility and total media concentration
of BS, OA, and MG was determined.[27] Sunesen
et al. reported the solubility of danazol shows positive linearity
in the presence of four amphiphiles (BS, PL, OA, MG) irrespective
of the type of amphiphile used;[14] a similar
relationship was presented for danazol, griseofulvin, fenofibrate,
cinnarazine,[19] and estradiol.[28]Other studies have examined the impact
of various simulated fasted
media on solubility;[13,16,29] however, these studies are not fully comparable since there are
amphiphile composition, concentration, and ratio changes (Table ) (FaSSIF[6] vs FaSSIF-V2[10] vs
FASSIF-V2plus[12] vs FaSSIF-V3[16]) between the systems. Nevertheless, in these
systems, cyclosporine,[16] nifedipine,[16,19] dipyridamole,[16,19] danazol,[16,19] ketoconazole,[16,19] celecoxib,[16] felodipine[16] and fenofibrate[16] all show varying degrees of media-dependent
solubility variation. Indicating a similar although not directly comparable
behavior to that presented in the current study.Studies into
the structures present within intestinal media indicate
that these consist of colloidal micelles, vesicles, and lipid droplets;[20,30] however, comparable studies of micelle structure to the current
system are not available. One study on simulated fasted fluids indicates
that these only consist of mixed micelles,[20] an observation that is likely to apply to the current 4MD experiment. Figures and 2 along with Table indicate that the ratio of biorelevant amphiphiles can influence
drug solubility. Since the 4MD maintains a constant pH and salt concentration,
this variation has to be due to changing interactions between the
amphiphiles altering “micellar” behavior or surface
tension[16] and subsequent interactions with
the drug to influence solubilization. However, the statistical output
for the 4MD was equilibrium solubility, and micellar characteristics
were not studied.The lipophilicity of a drug can affect how
much it engages with
the lipid-rich micelles.[27,29,31] Fagerberg et al. discovered drug compounds with a log D(oct) greater
than 3 that showed increased solubilization in colloidal structures
within fasted and fed intestinal media.[32] Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the solubility of spironolactone
(log P = 2.7)[33] and griseofulvin (log P
= 2.18)[34] was not significantly affected
by amphiphiles at this concentration since both of them have a comparatively
lower log P than the other drugs tested (Table ). However, their low degree of interaction
with BS–PL might also be conformationally related to their
relatively planar molecular structure, or the lack of nonpolar motif
may reduce the hydrophobic interaction with micelles. Previous studies
also indicated that griseofulvin solubility was not heavily influenced
by the concentration of BS, PL, and OA.[22] For the steroidal drug spironolactone, Hammad and Muller (1998)[35] reported a similar phenomenon with three other
steroidal drugs, prednisolone, progesterone, and estradiol. Although
carvedilol has a similar log D, the specific interaction with bile
salt (see above) appears to dominate other solubility characteristics.For the remaining drugs (aprepitant, fenofibrate, felodipine, zafirlukast),
solubility behavior is difficult to attribute to any specific drug
property due to the low number of test drugs and limited molecular
diversity or congruity. Zafirlukast has a comparatively high log P
(log P = 5.56), and on the BS/PL/OA surface, its solubility is dominantly
affected by the concentration of PL, which might be attributable to
its planar and rotatable structure, which could fit between the hydrophobic
chains of PL. Additional components in the 4MD reveal another high
solubility zone for zafirlukast with equal blend of MG and OA, both
of which have long alkyl chain tails. Warren and colleagues showed
in a simulation using molecular dynamics that more lipophilic molecules
tend to interact with the amphiphile’s lipid alkane chain region,
which again indicates interaction of the drug with the lipid system
is highly dependent on the polarity of both the drug and lipid molecules.[36] Nevertheless, apart from the multiple phase
forms and micelle sizes observed across different ratios, no standardized
rules and clear correlation have been identified between the composition
of the media and different drug solubility.[19]The results indicate that with the same total biorelevant
amphiphile
concentration the proportion of each component can have a remarkable
influence on solubility indicating that not only the amphiphile concentration
but also the ratio of the agents can influence drug solubility. Some
of this behavior can be ascribed to the drugs’ physicochemical
properties (log P), but the variation in profile between the drugs
indicates that the specific molecular interaction or interactions
between the drug and the amphiphile system play an important role
with high log P compounds. A principal component analysis on solubility
in human and simulated intestinal fluids[29] indicated that a range of structural molecular factors can be important.
Results with a larger range of drug properties and structures will
be required to provide a meaningful analysis.
Amphiphile
Solubility Effects
The
4MD statistical analysis provides a standardized effect value for
the contribution to solubility of each individual amphiphile and combinations
of amphiphiles (Figure a–d). For five of the drugs (aprepitant, carvedilol, fenofibrate,
spironolactone, and griseofulvin), the solubilizing effect of oleic
acid is dominant, a result in agreement with the previous fasted simulated
media DoE.[22] For zafirlukast, PL, and for
felodipine, an interaction between BS and PL are the dominant solubilizing
factors at variance with the DoE where BS and OA, respectively, were
the most significant, although the 4MD factors for each drug were
statistically significant in the DoE. There is a total of 98 possible
significant results (four for each amphiphile, six for dual combinations,
and four for three-way combinations for each of the seven drugs),
and 33 of these exhibit a positive effect on solubility (Figure d).The 4MD
also for each drug (with the exception of fenofibrate where no significant
negative effects are present) determines amphiphile combinations that
significantly negatively impact solubility. This occurs in 11 of the
possible 98 results, and interestingly, this is always a combination
of two or three amphiphiles with MG contributing to 10 results, BS
and PL, 7, and OA, 6. Due to statistical limitations of the previous
DoE, three-way interactions were not studied and MG was not a factor;
therefore, a complete comparison is not possible.The remaining
possible effects (54 out of 98) do not significantly
impact solubility, indicating that in the majority of cases mixtures
of amphiphiles do not interact. An effect that was also evident in
the fasted DoE.[22]These findings
are very similar to those of the reported fasted
DoE indicating that the 4MD is examining a system that is comparable
to simulated media with a focus on the solubility effects due to the
biorelevant amphiphiles. The y-axes in Figure d, which rank the individual
and combination effects, are different for each drug, again emphasizing
the individuality of each drug’s behavior in this system.
4MD Advantages and Limitations
The
difficulty of fitting 4MD data into linear models based on individual
amphiphile concentrations suggests a complicated interaction among
the amphiphiles, which is in agreement with DoE studies in which the
amphiphile component interactions were significant for basic and neutral
compounds. For example, significant interactions of BS and OA affected
felodipine, griseofulvin, fenofibrate, zafirlukast, aprepitant, and
carvedilol, while interactions with PL affected fewer drugs, which
might be due to the narrow range of PL concentration utilized (0.2–1
mM).[22] However, the roles and interactions
of PL became more evident in 4MD, as the range was expanded (0–11.7
mM). The dashed line in Figure indicates a possible space by providing BS/PL in a 4:1 and
15:1 ratio, with multiple levels of either MG or OA, which best resembles
the possible scenarios in FaSSIF media.[6,10] This clearly
covers a set of limited solubility variations that could happen in
the intestine, and although some of the combination ratios in the
4MD are not physiologically relevant in the fasted state, they provide
a larger range and indicate potential risks of solubility sensitivity
issues.Although combinations of amphiphiles exhibit better
solubilization, our study incorporated four different amphiphiles,
and the highest solubility was shown to vary from drug to drug. BS
and OA are two ionizable amphiphiles, the carboxylate group of OA
has a pKa of about 5; however, pKa could increase considerably to above 7 in
PL vesicles or other mixed aggregates.[37,38] Temperature
and ionic strength can also affect the apparent pKa. These ionization changes may affect solubilization
capacities of the amphiphiles and the charge interaction with ionizable
drugs. Carvedilol (pKa = 7.8, log P =
3.91)[39,40] is a moderately hydrophobic and ionic compound,
which is protonated at pH 7. Our data shows solubilization is aided
by a more negatively charged system with higher OA (75%–100%
OA). The solubility distribution within the BS/PL/OA surface of carvedilol
resembles the zeta potential contour plot (Figure ), which implies that electrostatic attraction
becomes a predominant factor for carvedilol–micelle interaction.
Figure 4
Zeta potential
(mV) distribution in BS/PL/OA mixture (0% MG), based
on 15 different compositions. Each point is an average number from
two measurements (processed in OriginPro 9.0.0 SR1).
Zeta potential
(mV) distribution in BS/PL/OA mixture (0% MG), based
on 15 different compositions. Each point is an average number from
two measurements (processed in OriginPro 9.0.0 SR1).One advantage of the 4MD versus the DoE is that
the levels of amphiphiles
in the previous DoE were selected based on the physiological level,
which can over emphasize one amphiphile relative to another if the
selected concentration range is intrinsically much higher (OA, BS
much higher than PL, MG). However, in the 4MD, all four components
are positioned in an equal molar range. This approach gives more insight
into the existence of complex phase boundaries, which change dynamically
as the fluids are altered down their journey from duodenum to colon.
Some of the ranges used in this approach may exceed the physiological
level in the fasted state. However, only one total concentration was
investigated in this study, which did not reach the fed state level
where even more diverse drug behavior is to be expected. For example,
griseofulvin absorption from GIT has been shown to increase with the
administration of a high fat meal.[41] This
was not shown in our study, which might be due to the limited range
of this 4MD envelope.
Conclusions
The
current 4MD study design generates an increase in information
over the previous literature and focuses on the influence of biorelevant
amphiphiles on the equilibrium solubility of BCS II drugs. Drugs from
previous DOE studies[22,23] with a statistically significant
standardized effect value indicating biorelevant amphiphiles increase
solubility were selected, and the results provide comparable solubility
data to literature results with both human and simulated intestinal
fluids. This approach generates information that differs from previous
studies, where drug solubility has a linear relationship with the
total concentration of amphiphiles regardless of the type of amphiphiles
used.[9,27,28]Two
out of seven drugs (griseofulvin, spironolactone) in this study
with log P values less than 3 show marginal solubility influence induced
by changing the amphiphile ratios, which adds additional information
that the concentration and also the ratio of surfactants would not
affect their solubility significantly. For the other five drugs (felodipine,
fenofibrate, zafirlukast, carvedilol, and aprepitant) with log P values
greater than 3, the results imply that the media solubilization capacities
are not a simple sum of the effects of the four biorelevant amphiphiles
with drug lipophilicity and that more complicated interactions and
drug specific effects are important. It also suggests some insights
into the drug–micelle interactions, and some of the effects
observed are in good agreement with reported studies,[14,35,42] indicating that drug solubility
is related to lipophilicity with other factors, for example, molecular
shape and charge contributing. However, the unique behavior of each
drug in this study and the limited number tested does not permit detailed
conclusions to be drawn.This result indicates that not only
the amphiphile concentration
but also the ratio of the agents can influence drug solubility and
that the resulting solubility topography is drug dependent. Therefore,
a single-point solubility measurement in a fixed composition media
will provide a value that might be situated in a valley, plateau,
slope, or peak. In simulated media systems or in human intestinal
fluid samples with a constant ratio of components, without knowledge
of the surrounding solubility topography, some variability may be
overlooked. Reproducible solubility determinations might indicate
a consistent solubility throughout the entire space (griseofulvin,
spironolactone) or a measurement on a plateau (aprepitant), while
variability may relate to measurement on a slope. Therefore, targeting
simulated media analysis to a physiological related and compacted
ratio range of bile, phospholipids, and digested lipids while covering
the concentration of fasted and fed states would provide information
on the variation and sensitivity of drug solubility to specific combinations
of biorelevant components.There may be opportunities to incorporate
the solubility information
from the 4MD into PBPK models, which would be useful for predicting
the individual variability or disease-related changes in the gastrointestinal
fluids that can affect drug bioavailability. Future studies could
employ a higher concentration of mixed amphiphiles that would be generated
in the fed state and pH could be altered, which is likely to provide
even more complicated systems through ionization changes to the drug,[5] the amphiphiles,[37,38] and the interactions
between drugs and amphiphiles.[22,23] Further studies with
a larger samples of drugs with varying molecular properties (not simply
log P) or a homologous series will be required in order to dissect
the relationship of drug properties to amphiphile-specific solubilization.
Authors: Annette Scholz; Bertil Abrahamsson; Steffen M Diebold; Edmund Kostewicz; Britta I Polentarutti; Anna-Lena Ungell; Jennifer B Dressman Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Jan Bevernage; Joachim Brouwers; Sarah Clarysse; Maria Vertzoni; Jan Tack; Pieter Annaert; Patrick Augustijns Journal: J Pharm Sci Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.534
Authors: Devendra N Ridhurkar; Khalid Akhter Ansari; Deepak Kumar; Neeraj S Kaul; T Krishnamurthy; Sanju Dhawan; Raviraj Pillai Journal: Drug Dev Ind Pharm Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Géza Jakab; Dóra Bogdán; Károly Mazák; Ruth Deme; Zoltán Mucsi; István M Mándity; Béla Noszál; Nikolett Kállai-Szabó; István Antal Journal: AAPS PharmSciTech Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 3.246
Authors: Qamar Abuhassan; Ibrahim Khadra; Kate Pyper; Patrick Augustijns; Joachim Brouwers; Gavin W Halbert Journal: Eur J Pharm Biopharm Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 5.571
Authors: Darrick K Li; Snehal N Chaudhari; Yoojin Lee; Mozhdeh Sojoodi; Arijit A Adhikari; Lawrence Zukerberg; Stuti Shroff; Stephen Cole Barrett; Kenneth Tanabe; Raymond T Chung; A Sloan Devlin Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 14.957