Search

A series of 21 sulfoester and sulfonamide derivatives comprising two aromatic rings was synthesized to investigate the effect of the presence of either electron-donating (ED) or electron-withdrawing (EW) groups on the intramolecular π-stacking assembly. The positioning of ED or EW moieties was carried out directly on one of the aromatic rings linked to the sulfonyl or sulfonamide moieties. In contrast, the other aromatic ring (phenyl or pyridine) was connected by a –CH2–CH2– spacer with the sulfonyl or sulfonamide moiety. The purpose of having an ethyl spacer between the two aromatic rings was to achieve conformational flexibility, facilitating the intramolecular π-stacking assembly between the two aromatic rings. The use of sulfoester/sulfonamide groups allowed more conformational flexibility to attain desired orientations in solids with the interplay of the hydrogen-bonding interactions. Between the two functional groups, sulfonamides offered a more hydrogen-rich environment due to the amine moiety and may exhibit higher H-bonding propensity than the sulfoester moiety. The central idea here was to study the interplay between the hydrogen-bonding and π⋯π interactions. The substituent groups chosen were categorized as strong electron-withdrawing (–CF3 and –CN), weak electron-withdrawing (–Cl and –Br), neutral (–H), and good electron-donating (–CH3 and –OCH3) groups. Crystal structure analysis revealed the syn conformation for all the derivatives, enabling intramolecular π⋯π interactions between the two aromatic rings, whereas in the sulfonamide derivatives, the molecule takes either midway or anti conformations, except for one pyridine sulfonamide derivative, which showed the syn orientation but lacked intramolecular π-stacking interactions. The absence of any conventional H-bond forming functional groups in the sulfoester derivatives may have resulted in the syn geometry facilitated by intramolecular π-stacking interactions. Conversely, H-bond-forming functional groups in the sulfonamide derivatives could have prevented the syn conformation. The conformational analysis carried out employing density functional theory (DFT) calculations confirmed the higher stability of the syn conformation over the midway and anti orientations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rivaroxaban (RXB) is a direct factor Xa inhibitor used for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT, a blood clot in the leg) and pulmonary embolism (PE, a blood clot in the lung) and to prevent blood clots in atrial fibrillation following hip or knee surgery. However, RXB suffers from poor solubility that hinders its broader application. Although its cocrystals are reported for solubility enhancement, the methodology used to prepare multi-component crystals is complex. Also, it uses hazardous solvents to develop cocrystals. We have prepared eutectics of RXB with caffeic acid (CAA), coumaric acid (CA), fumaric acid (FA), succinic acid (SA), mandelic acid (MA) and trimesic acid (TA) and analyzed them using hot stage microscopy (HSM), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), and fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) techniques. The saturation solubility and dissolution rate profiles were also obtained to investigate the effect of eutectics on these parameters. Amongst all the coformers tested, coformers CAA, CA, and FA showed significant enhancement in the solubility of RXB. The powder dissolution rate of the eutectics showed considerable enhancement compared to that of RXB. In vivo pharmacokinetic study was carried out for RXB–CAA, RXB–CA and RXB–FA in rats and compared with RXB, which showed 1.5 and 1.4 times enhancement in relative bioavailability for RXB–CAA and RXB–CA, respectively. Stability studies were carried out as per ICH guidelines for all the eutectics, which revealed excellent stability over six months under accelerated (40 °C and 75%) conditions and twelve months under long-term (30 °C and 60% RH) conditions. The DFT studies carried out using the B3LYP/TZVP level of theory revealed higher Gibbs free interaction energy (ΔGint) for homosynthons (drug⋯drug and coformer⋯coformer) than heterosynthons (drug⋯coformer). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]