4.7 Article

pH-Dependent Solubility of Indomethacin-Saccharin and Carbamazepine-Saccharin Cocrystals in Aqueous Media

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACEUTICS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 2605-2612

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/mp300189b

关键词

cocrystal; solubility; indomethacin; carbamazepine; saccharin; pH; solubility; eutectic point

资金

  1. Kempe Foundation (Kempestiftelserna)
  2. Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsradet)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cocrystals constitute an important class of pharmaceutical solids for their remarkable ability to modulate solubility and pH dependence of water insoluble drugs. Here we show how cocrystals of indomethacin saccharin (IND-SAC) and carbamazepine saccharin (CBZ-SAC) enhance solubility and impart a pH-sensitivity different from that of the drugs. IND-SAC exhibited solubilities 13 to 65 times higher than IND at pH values of 1 to 3, whereas CBZ-SAC exhibited a 2 to 10 times higher solubility than CBZ dihydrate. Cocrystal solubility dependence on pH predicted from mathematical models using cocrystal K-sp, and cocrystal component K-a values, was in excellent agreement with experimental measurements. The cocrystal solubility increase relative to drug was predicted to reach a limiting value for a cocrystal with two acidic components. This limiting value is determined by the ionization constants of cocrystal components. Eutectic constants are shown to be meaningful indicators of cocrystal solubility and its pH dependence. The two contributions to solubility, cocrystal lattice and solvation, were evaluated by thermal and solubility determinations. The results show that solvation is the main barrier for the aqueous solubility of these drugs and their cocrystals, which are orders of magnitude higher than their lattice barriers. Cocrystal increase in solubility is thus a result of decreasing the solvation barrier compared to that of the drug. This work demonstrates the favorable properties of cocrystals and strategies that facilitate their meaningful characterization.

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