Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lipophilicity in Drug Development: Too Much or Not Enough?

  • Meeting Report
  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A round table discussion was held during the AAPS Annual Meeting on October 27, 2015, with the somewhat provocative topic of whether we need more or less lipophilic compounds in drug development. The session was attended by more than 250 participants, and the feedback was very positive as this round table became a forum for the exchange of ideas from scientists within the academia and industry. Most importantly, the discussion highlighted the difference in approaches to compound selection and development strategies in various companies and organizations. As moderators of this session, we are writing this report to highlight the points and counterpoints made at the session and to bring the importance of the dialogue and debate to the forefront of discussions on how to select the best drug development candidates to enable efficient delivery and, hence, treatment of diseases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeny PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeabilty in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;23:3–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jain N, Yalkowsky SH. Estimation of the aqueous solubility I: application to organic nonelectrolytes. J Pharm Sci. 2001;90(2):234–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wassvik CM, Holmen AG, Draheim R, Artursson P, Bergström CAS. Molecular characteristics for solid-state limited solubility. J Med Chem. 2008;51(10):3035–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bergström CAS, Charman WN, Porter CJ. Computational prediction of formulation strategies for beyond-rule-of-5 compounds. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;101:6–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leeson PD. Molecular inflation, attrition and the rule of five. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;101:22–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Leeson PD, Springthorpe B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:881–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Leeson PD, St-Gallay SA. The influence of the ‘organizational factor’ on compound quality in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(10):749–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lipinski CA. Rule of five in 2015 and beyond: target and ligand structural limitations, ligand chemistry structure and drug discovery project decisions. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;101:34–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Perot S, Sperandio O, Miteva MA, Camproux AC, Villoutreix BO. Druggable pockets and binding site centric chemical space: a paradigm shift in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15(15–16):656–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wendt MD. The discovery of Navitoclax, a Bcl-2 family inhibitor. Topics Med Chem. 2012;8:231–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Feeney OM, Crum MF, McEvoy CL, Trevaskis NL, Williams HD, Pouton CW, et al. 50 years of oral lipid-based formulations: provenance, progress and future perspectives. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;101:167–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sahbaz Y, Williams HD, Nguyen TH, Saunders J, Ford L, Charman SA, et al. Transformation of poorly water-soluble drugs into lipophilic ionic liquids enhances oral drug exposure from lipid based formulations. Mol Pharm. 2015;12(6):1980–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Trevaskis NL, Kaminskas LM, Porter CJ. From sewer to saviour—targeting the lymphatic system to promote drug exposure and activity. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14(11):781–803.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Han S, Hu L, Quach T, Simpson JS, Trevaskis NL, Porter CJ. Profiling the role of deacylation-reacylation in the lymphatic transport of a triglyceride-mimetic prodrug. Pharm Res. 2015;32(5):1830–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Han S, Quach T, Hu L, Wahab A, Charman WN, Stella VJ, et al. Targeted delivery of a model immunomodulator to the lymphatic system: comparison of alkyl ester versus triglyceride mimetic lipid prodrug strategies. J Control Release. 2014;177:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Young RJ, Green DV, Luscombe CN, Hill AP. Getting physical in drug discovery II: the impact of chromatographic hydrophobicity measurements and aromaticity. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16(17–18):822–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala Biomedical Centre, P.O. Box 580, SE-751 23, Uppsala, Sweden

    Christel A. S. Bergström

  2. Pharmaceutics Department, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical R&D Inc, West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA

    Mehran Yazdanian

Authors
  1. Christel A. S. Bergström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehran Yazdanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christel A. S. Bergström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bergström, C.A.S., Yazdanian, M. Lipophilicity in Drug Development: Too Much or Not Enough?. AAPS J 18, 1095–1100 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-016-9947-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-016-9947-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation