ABSTRACT
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Formulation Needs and Challenges in Discovery Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Formulation Strategies and Drug Delivery Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
pH Adjustment and Salt Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Cosolvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Complexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Surfactants and Micelles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Emulsions and Microemulsions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Nanosuspensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Phase Appropriate Formulation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Formulation for PK Screening In Vivo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Formulations for Preclinical Pharmacology Studies to Assess Efficacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Formulation for PK Profiling and Biopharmaceutical Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Formulations for Preliminary Toxicological Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Typical Formulation Used in Preclinical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Animal Species and Routes Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Formulation Stability and Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
The advent of high-throughput screening technologies, combinatorial chemistry, computational modeling, and proteomics has resulted in many more targets and compounds during drug discovery stage (Venkatesh and Lipper, 2000). However, many of these compounds are highly lipophilic and
9644: “9644_c007” — 2007/11/21 — 11:53 — page 114 — #2
compounds with these properties tend to have more potency (in vitro binding activity) due to additional hydrophobic interactions with enzyme or receptor surface (Lombardino and Lowe III, 2004). These compounds are usually not drug-like because of their low water solubility, a major cause for poor pharmacokinetics (PK) and oral bioavailability. As a result, they may falter in further development, resulting in a higher attrition rate and lost productivities.
