4.7 Article

Hansen solubility parameter as a tool to predict cocrystal formation

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 407, 期 1-2, 页码 63-71

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.01.030

关键词

Hansen solubility parameters (HSPs); Predicting cocrystal formation; Cohesive energy density; Group contribution method; Miscibility

资金

  1. Kempe Foundations
  2. Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to investigate whether the miscibility of a drug and coformer, as predicted by Hansen solubility parameters (HSPs), can indicate cocrystal formation and guide cocrystal screening. It was also our aim to evaluate various HSPs-based approaches in miscibility prediction. HSPs for indomethacin (the model drug) and over thirty coformers were calculated according to the group contribution method. Differences in the HSPs between indomethacin and each coformer were then calculated using three established approaches, and the miscibility was predicted. Subsequently, differential scanning calorimetry was used to investigate the experimental miscibility and cocrystal formation. The formation of cocrystals was also verified using liquid-assisted grinding. All except one of the drug-coformers that were predicted to be miscible were confirmed experimentally as miscible. All tested theoretical approaches were in agreement in predicting miscibility. All systems that formed cocrystals were miscible. Remarkably, two new cocrystals of indomethacin were discovered in this study. Though it may be necessary to test this approach in a wide range of different coformer and drug compound types for accurate generalizations, the trends with tested systems were clear and suggest that the drug and coformer should be miscible for cocrystal formation. Thus, predicting the miscibility of cocrystal components using solubility parameters can guide the selection of potential coformers prior to exhaustive cocrystal screening work. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据