4.7 Article

Minoxidil Multi-Component Crystals with Aromatic Carboxylic Acids: Theoretical Calculation and Structural Analysis

期刊

CRYSTAL GROWTH & DESIGN
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 3941-3953

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.2c00339

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22178121, 21908254]
  2. 111 Project [B20003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the predictability of the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD), Hansen solubility parameter (HSP), and the conductor-like screening model for real solvents (COSMO-RS) methods in screening co-formers for minoxidil. The results confirm the efficiency of the CSD method and demonstrate that the COSMO-RS method performs much better than the HSP method.
Screening of co-formers for a specific active pharmaceutical ingredient is challenging during the development of multi-component crystals. Taking minoxidil (MIN) as a model drug, this study aims to examine the predictivity of the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD), Hansen solubility parameter (HSP), and the conductor-like screening model for real solvents (COSMO-RS) methods. First, CSD analysis based on a supramolecular approach was employed. Then, HSP and COSMO-RS methods were used to predict the cocrystallization possibility between MIN and 27 co-formers, where 10 candidate cases were reported. Based on the predicted results, eight aromatic carboxylic acids formed new solid forms with MIN experimentally, which met the criteria of Delta delta(t) < 7 MPa0.5 and Delta H-ex < -2.00 kcal mol(-1), respectively, and four single crystals of these were successfully obtained. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction and Hirshfeld surface analysis indicated that the proton transferred from co-formers to MIN, and seven new MIN multi-component crystals showed rapid release in the first 30 min (1.52- to 2.91-fold) with improved solubility. This study confirms the efficiency of the CSD method and demonstrates that the COSMO-RS method performs much better than the HSP method.

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