Food and bile micelle binding of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 649 ADMET & DMPK 12(4) (2024) 649-656; doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 Open Access : ISSN : 1848-7718 http://www.pub.iapchem.org/ojs/index.php/admet/index Original scientific paper Food and bile micelle binding of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs Rie Takeuchi and Kiyohiko Sugano* Molecular Pharmaceutics Lab., College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1, Noji-higashi, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-8577, Japan *Corresponding Authors: E-mail: suganok@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp; Tel.: +81-77-561-2773 Received: August 1, 2024; Revised: August 21, 2024; Published: August 29, 2024 Abstract Background and purpose: The food effects on oral drug absorption are challenging to predict from in vitro data. Food intake has been reported to reduce the oral absorption of several zwitterionic antihistamine drugs. However, the mechanism for this negative food effect has not been clear. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the bile micelle and food binding of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs as a possible mechanism for the negative food effects on their oral drug absorption. Experimental approach: Bilastine (BIL), cetirizine (CET), fexofenadine (FEX), and olopatadine (OLO) were employed as model drugs. The fed/fasted AUC ratios of BIL, CET, FEX, and OLO after oral administration are reported to be 0.60 to 0.7, 0.92, 0.76 to 0.85, and 0.84, respectively. The unbound fraction (fu) of these drugs in the fasted and fed state simulated intestinal fluids (FaSSIF and FeSSIF, containing 3 and 15 mM taurocholic acid, respectively) with or without FDA breakfast homogenate (BFH) was measured by dynamic dialysis. Key results: The FeSSIF/ FaSSIF fu ratios were 0.90 (BIL), 0.46 (CET), 0.76 (FEX), and 0.78 (OLO). In the presence of BFH, the fu ratios were reduced to 0.52 (BIL), 0.22 (CET), 0.39 (FEX), and 0.44 (OLO). Conclusion: Despite being zwitterion at pH 6.5, the antihistamine drugs were bound to bile micelles. Bile micelle and food binding were suggested to cause a negative food effect on the oral absorption of these drugs. However, the AUC ratio was not quantitatively predicted by using FeSSIF + BFH. ©2024 by the authors. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Keywords Negative food effect; unbound fraction; simulated intestinal fluid; dynamic dialysis; intestinal membrane permeation, zwitterionic, antihistamine Introduction The oral absorption of a drug is affected by various physiological factors in the gastrointestinal tract [1]. The physiological conditions in the fed state are markedly different from those in the fasted state. For example, bile micelle concentration is significantly increased in the fed state. In addition, food components can interact with drug molecules. It is still challenging to predict the food effects on oral drug absorption from in vitro data [2-4]. In the mechanistic oral absorption models, the free (unbound) fraction in the intestinal fluid (fu) is one of the key parameters that determine the effective intestinal permeability of a drug (Peff) [5]. High solubility/ low permeability drugs tend to show a negative food effect. In these cases, the rate and extent of fraction dose absorbed Fa is limited by epithelial membrane permeation (Fa rate-limiting step (FaRLS): permeability-limited (PL) by the epithelial membrane (PL-E)) [2,6]. Recently, the bile micelle and food binding of drugs were reported to be able to elucidate the negative food effect for hydrophilic tertiary and https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 http://www.pub.iapchem.org/ojs/index.php/admet/index mailto:suganok@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ R. Takeuchi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 12(4) (2024) 649-656 650 quaternary amines [5,7]. Some zwitterionic antihistamine drugs are also known to show negative food effects in humans. However, it has not been clear whether a zwitterionic drug can also bind to bile micelles and/or food components. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether zwitterionic antihistamine drugs can bind to bile micelles and food components. Bilastine (BIL), cetirizine (CET), fexofenadine (FEX), and olopatadine (OLO) were employed as model drugs (Figure 1). The physicochemical properties of these drugs are shown in Table 1. These drugs are zwitterionic and show moderate lipophilicity at pH 6.5. The fed/fasted AUC ratios of BIL, CET, FEX, and OLO are 0.60 to 0.7 [8-10], 0.92 [11], 0.76 to 0.85 [12,13], and 0.84 [14], respectively. In this study, dynamic dialysis was used to measure the fu values in the simulated intestinal fluids consisting of bile micelles and food homogenates. Figure 1. Chemical structures of zwitterionic antihistamine model drugs Table 1. Physicochemical properties and clinical data of model drugs Drug MW pKa a Isoelectric point log Doct pH 6.5b Dose, mg Food effect, %c Bilastine 464 4.0 (A) 8.8 (B) 6.40 0.39 ± 0.01 20 0.60 – 0.70 Cetirizine 389 2.12 (B) 2.90 (A) 7.98 (B) 5.44 1.46 ± 0.01 10 0.92 Fexofenadine 502 4.20 (A) 7.84 (B) 6.02 0.51 ± 0.01 120 0.76 – 0.85 Olopatadine 337 4.18 (A) 9.79 (B) 6.99 0.34 ± 0.01 10 0.84 a Bilastine (estimated from the pH - log Doct profile. Temperature and ionic strength not reported) [8], cetirizine (25 ˚C, I = 0.15 M) [15], fexofenadine (24 ˚C, I = 0.01 M) [15], and olopatadine (Temperature and ionic strength not reported) [14]. b Measured in this study c AUC ratio (fed/fasted). Bilastine [8], cetirizine [11], fexofenadine [12] and olopatadine [14]. The permeation flux (J) is expressed by the total drug concentration dissolved in the GI fluid (Cdissolv = unbound + bound) and the effective (apparent) permeation coefficient (Peff) as in Equation (1) [2]: dissolv effJ C P (1) In the case of PL-E, according to the free fraction theory, only unbound molecules can permeate the epithelial membrane, Equation (2), eff u ep  P f P (2) where Pep is the epithelial membrane permeation coefficient defined based on the unbound drug concen- tration, and fu is the unbound (free) fraction. Bile micelle and food binding can reduce the concentration of ADMET & DMPK 12(4) (2024) 649-656 Food and bile micelle binding of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 651 unbound drug molecules (= fu Cdissolv) at the epithelial membrane surface. In the case when the oral absorption of a drug is permeability-limited, Fa can be calculated as in Equation (3) eff1-   a 1-e APF = (3) where A = 1.4 × 104 s/cm (Peff in cm/s). The Fa ratio (= AUC ratio) in the fasted/fed states approximately becomes the fu ratio (fu,fed/fu,fasted) for Fa < 0.7 cases [2]. Experimental Material Fexofenadine hydrochloride, bilastine, olopatadine hydrochloride, and cetirizine dihydrochloride were purchased from Tokyo Chemical Industry Co., Ltd (Tokyo, Japan). Sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate (NaH2PO4 2H2O), 8N NaOH, 1-octanol, taurocholic acid (TC), and oleic acid (OA) were purchased from FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation (Osaka, Japan). Egg yolk lecithin (EL) was purchased from Kewpie Corporation (Tokyo, Japan). Glyceryl mono-oleate (GM) was purchased from Nippon Surfactant Industries Co., Ltd (Tokyo, Japan). A cellulose dialysis membrane (Φ 15.9×25 mm×15 m) was purchased from As-One Corporation (Osaka, Japan). The FDA breakfast ingredients, and other food were purchased from the local market (bacon (Itoham Foods Inc, Japan), toast (Choujuku bread, Pasco Shikishima Corporation, Japan), egg (Akadama, miwa keien Co., Ltd, Japan), hash browns (Hoshino potato, Heinz Japan Ltd, Japan), whole milk (Oishii Megumilk Snow Brand Milk, MEGMILK SNOW BRAND Co., Ltd, Japan), butter (Hokkaido-butter, MEGMILK SNOW BRAND Co., Ltd, Japan). Methods Processing of FDA Breakfast The FDA breakfast was comprised of one strip of bacon, half a slice of toast, one fried egg, 55 g of hash browns, 30 g of butter, and 100 mL of whole milk. After cooking, the FDA breakfast was homogenized for 15 s by a food processor. The FDA breakfast homogenate (BFH) was divided into small aliquots and stored in a freezer (-30 °C). It was thawed under running water before use. Measurement of the unbound fraction by dynamic dialysis Dynamic dialysis was performed using a side-by-side chamber (SANPLATEC Co., Ltd (Osaka, Japan)) with a cellulose dialysis membrane (molecular weight cut-off: 3500). The membrane area was 2.0 cm2. The fluid volume was 1.5 mL for both the donor and acceptor sides. The fasted and fed state simulated intestinal fluids (FaSSIF and FeSSIF, respectively) with or without BFH were used as test media (Table 2). Each drug was dissolved in the test media and added to the donor side (0.04 mM (BIL), 0.2 mM (CTZ), 0.5 mM (FEX), and 0.5 mM (OLO)). The blank FaSSIF was added to the acceptor side. After incubation for 1 h at 37 °C, the drug concentration in the acceptor side was measured by HPLC (Shimazu Prominence LC-20 series and Agilent Technologies 1200 Series, column: ZORBAX Eclipse Plus (C18 2.1×50 mm, 3.5 µm) (Agilent Technologies), flow rate: 0.6 mL min-1, mobile phase: 0.1 % trifluoroacetic acid-acetonitrile/0.1 % trifluoroacetic acid-water (25 % (BIL), 35 % (CTZ), 35 % (FEX), and 28 % (OLO)), detection: UV (BIL: 280 nm, CET: 230 nm, FEX: 225 nm, and OLO: 300 nm), column temperature: 40 °C, and injection volume of 10 µL). Permeation was calculated as the ratio of the concentration in the acceptor side at 1 h and the theoretical equilibrium concentration (0.02 mM (BIL), 0.1 mM (CTZ), 0.25 mM (FEX), and 0.25 mM (OLO)) (×100 to convert to %). The unbound fraction (fu) was calculated as the ratio of permeation in each medium and the test medium of Blank FaSSIF. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 R. Takeuchi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 12(4) (2024) 649-656 652 Table 2. Composition of simulated intestinal fluids a Test medium Content, mM BFH, %c TC EL GM OA FaSSIF 3 0.75 0 0 0 FeSSIF 15 3.75 0 0 0 ×2FeSSIF 30 7.50 0 0 0 FeSSIFv2 10 2.0 5 0.8 0 BFH b 0 0 0 0 50 FeSSIF+BFH 15 3.75 0 0 50 a The components were dissolved in a phosphate buffer (phosphate 28.6 mM, NaCl 106 mM, pH 6.5) (blank FaSSIF). TC: taurocholic acid, EL: egg lecithin, GM: Glyceryl mono-oleate, OA: oleic acid. b BFH added to blank FaSSIF. c wt.% The octanol-water distribution coefficient measurement The octanol-water distribution coefficient (log Doct) values of model drugs were measured by the shake- flask method. A model drug was dissolved in blank FaSSIF pre-saturated with 1-octanol (BIL: 0.1 mM, CTZ: 1 mM, FEX: 1 mM, and OLO: 1 mM). The drug solution (2.5 mL or 5.5 mL) was added to 0.5 mL of 1-octanol pre- saturated with water. The samples were shaken by a shaker for 90 minutes at room temperature (25 ± 2 °C). The drug concentration in the aqueous phase was measured by a UV absorbance (BIL: 280 nm, CET: 230 nm, FEX: 225 nm, and OLO: 300 nm, UV-1850, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). The log Doct value was calculated by Equation 4: ( )aq,ini aq aq oct aq oct   C C V D C V − = (4) where Caq,ini and Caq are the initial and equilibrium drug concentrations in the aqueous phase, and Vaq and Voct are the volume of aqueous and octanol phases, respectively. Results and discussion The fu values of all drugs decreased in the presence of bile micelles and BFH (Figure 2, Table 3). This result suggests that the reduction of fu by bile micelle binding in the fed state is likely to be one of the reasons for the negative food effect on the oral absorption of these drugs. The addition of BFH also decreased the fu values of model drugs. Therefore, direct food binding could also be one of the reasons for the negative food effect. The fu ratios of FeSSIF/FaSSIF of FEX and OLO were in good agreement with the extent of the food effect in humans. However, the food effect was underestimated for BIL and overestimated for CET. In the presence of BFH, the fu ratio of FeSSIF/FaSSIF of BIL was in good agreement with the food effect. Even though the fu ratio of CET is lower than that of the other drugs, the clinical negative food effect on the oral absorption of CET is less significant. This would be due to the higher lipophilicity and faster passive permeability of CET. In such case, the extent of Fa becomes less sensitive to a decrease in fu and Peff (Eq. 3). The bioavailability in humans of CET is > 70 % [11], which is higher than that of FEX (33 %) [16] and BIL (61 %) [8]. The charge species distribution of the model drugs is shown in Figure 3. Despite being zwitterion at pH 6.5, the antihistamine drugs were bound to bile micelles. The bile micelle binding of CET was stronger than that of others, as expected from its higher log Doct (CET > FEX ≈ BIL ≈ OLO). CET is a triprotic compound [17,18]. However, the first pKa (N1 of the piperidine group) is 2.12 and is not protonated at pH 6.5. Therefore, CET mainly exists as a zwitterion at pH 6.5. ADMET & DMPK 12(4) (2024) 649-656 Food and bile micelle binding of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 653 Figure 2. Effect of bile micelles and FDA breakfast homogenate (BFH) on the fu values of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs. Table 3. Permeation and fu a Drug Test medium Permeation at 1 h, % fu fu ratio b Bilastine Blank FaSSIF 15.6 ± 0.5 FaSSIF 17.3 ± 0.8 1.10 ± 0.05 FeSSIF 15.5 ± 0.7 0.99 ± 0.05 0.90 ± 0.04 ×2 FeSSIF 12.1 ± 0.6 0.78 ± 0.04 0.70 ± 0.03 FeSSIF-V2 13.4 ± 0.8 0.86 ± 0.06 0.78 ± 0.05 BFH 9.0 ± 0.1 0.58 ± 0.00 0.52 ± 0.00 FeSSIF+BFH 9.0 ± 0.1 0.58 ± 0.01 0.52 ± 0.01 Cetirizine Blank FaSSIF 16.4 ± 0.6 FaSSIF 16.3 ± 0.5 0.99 ± 0.03 FeSSIF 7.4 ± 0.2 0.45 ± 0.01 0.46 ± 0.01 ×2 FeSSIF 3.8 ± 0.1 0.23 ± 0.01 0.23 ± 0.01 FeSSIF-V2 8.7 ± 0.1 0.53 ± 0.00 0.53 ± 0.00 BFH 4.6 ± 0.0 0.28 ± 0.00 0.29 ± 0.00 FeSSIF+BFH 3.5 ± 0.2 0.21 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.01 Fexofenadine Blank FaSSIF 12.0 ± 0.7 FaSSIF 13.1 ± 0.5 1.09 ± 0.04 FeSSIF 10.0 ± 0.7 0.84 ± 0.06 0.76 ± 0.06 ×2 FeSSIF 7.7 ± 0.6 0.64 ± 0.05 0.59 ± 0.05 FeSSIF-V2 10.6 ± 0.4 0.88 ± 0.03 0.81 ± 0.03 BFH 5.4 ± 0.1 0.45 ± 0.01 0.41 ± 0.01 FeSSIF+BFH 5.1 ± 0.1 0.43 ± 0.01 0.39 ± 0.01 Olopatadine Blank FaSSIF 20.8 ± 0.7 FaSSIF 21.9 ± 0.5 1.05 ± 0.02 FeSSIF 17.1 ± 0.3 0.82 ± 0.02 0.78 ± 0.02 ×2 FeSSIF 12.2 ± 0.1 0.59 ± 0.01 0.56 ± 0.01 FeSSIF-V2 18.4 ± 0.3 0.88 ± 0.01 0.84 ± 0.01 BFH 10.3 ± 0.3 0.50 ± 0.02 0.47 ± 0.01 FeSSIF+BFH 9.7 ± 0.2 0.46 ± 0.01 0.44 ± 0.01 aMean ± S.D., n = 3 bvs. the fu value in FaSSIF https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 R. Takeuchi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 12(4) (2024) 649-656 654 The log Doct values of BIL (0.39) and OLO (0.34) are close to that of propranolol (PRO) (log Doct = 0.4) [5]. In addition, the amine groups of these drugs are > 99 % charged at pH 6.5. However, the bile micelle binding of propranolol is reported to be about 3-fold stronger than those of BIL and OLO. In addition, even though the log Doct values of the zwitterions are greater than that of quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC) (log Doct << 0), the fu values of the zwitterionic drugs are comparable with that of QACs [7]. The bile micelles in FaSSIF and FeSSIF are negatively charged by the -SO3 - group in taurocholic acid. Therefore, the carboxyl anion (-COO-) in the zwitterionic drugs was suggested to reduce the bile micelle binding, like in the cases of liposome binding [18,19]. In a buffer solution at the isoelectric pH point, a zwitterion drug exists as an equilibrium between a zwitterion molecule and an un-ionized molecule [20]. The isoelectric pH points of the model drugs are near pH 6.5 (5.4 to 7.0) (Table 1). From the difference between the pKa values of carboxylic acid and amine (> 3.6), they are estimated to exist as the zwitterion more than 99.8 % [21]. Therefore, the zwitterionic molecules may bind bile micelles. A more detailed mechanism of the charge effect on the bile micelle binding of drugs is under investigation. Figure 3. Charge species distribution of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs Conclusions In conclusion, the zwitterionic antihistamine drugs were found to bind to bile micelles and foods, suggesting that it would be the reason for the negative food effect. The lipophilicity and charge state were suggested to affect the bile micelle binding. Dynamic dialysis would be a good tool to measure bile micelle and food binding. Funding: No funding support Conflict of interest: The Author(s) declare(s) that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Author contributions: Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Rie Takeuchi. Kiyohiko Sugano supervised all phases of the study, including the manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ADMET & DMPK 12(4) (2024) 649-656 Food and bile micelle binding of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 655 Data availability: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on request. References [1] D.M. Mudie, G.L. Amidon, G.E. Amidon. Physiological parameters for oral delivery and in vitro testing. Molecular Pharmaceutics 7 (2010) 1388-1405. https://doi.org/10.1021/mp100149j. [2] K. Sugano, M. Kataoka, C. da Costa Mathews, S. Yamashita. Prediction of food effect by bile micelles on oral drug absorption considering free fraction in intestinal fluid. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 40 (2010) 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2010.03.011. [3] A. Emami Riedmaier. Predicting food effects: are we there yet? The AAPS Journal 24 (2022) 25. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-021-00674-x. [4] H. Ramasubramanian, S. Castleberry. Biopharmaceutical Modeling of Food Effect─Exploring the Role of Dietary Fat. Molecular Pharmaceutics 20 (2023) 2726-2737. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.3c00170. [5] Y. Akiyama, S. Ito, T. Fujita, K. Sugano. Prediction of negative food effect induced by bile micelle binding on oral absorption of hydrophilic cationic drugs. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 155 (2020) 105543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2020.105543. [6] K. Sugano, K. Terada. Rate-and extent-limiting factors of oral drug absorption: theory and applications. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 104 (2015) 2777-2788. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.24391. [7] T. Sumiji, K. Sugano. Food and bile micelle binding of quaternary ammonium compounds. ADMET and DMPK 11 (2023) 409-417. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2023. [8] TAIHO PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. Bilastine Drug Product Information. https://www.taiho.co.jp/medical/product/detail/index.html?_productGroupId=990. [9] P. Paśko, T. Rodacki, R. Domagała-Rodacka, K. Palimonka, M. Marcinkowska, D. Owczarek. Second generation H1-antihistamines interaction with food and alcohol—a systematic review. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 93 (2017) 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.06.008. [10] J. Coimbra, M. Puntes, I. Gich, J. Martínez, P. Molina, R. Antonijoan, C. Campo, L. Labeaga. Lack of clinical relevance of bilastine-food interaction in healthy volunteers: A wheal and flare study. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 183 (2022) 1241-1250. https://doi.org/10.1159/000524856. [11] GSK. Cetrizine Drug Product Information. https://gskpro.com/ja-jp/products-info/zyrtec/index/. [12] [Sanofi. Fexofenadine Drug Product Information. https://www.e-mr.sanofi.co.jp/dam/jcr:2d468ede- 5f77-43ce-9d19-057401361c43/allegra.pdf. [13] M. Stoltz, T. Arumugham, C. Lippert, D. Yu, V. Bhargava, M. Eller, S. Weir. Effect of food on the bioavailability of fexofenadine hydrochloride (MDL 16455A). Biopharmaceutics and Drug Disposition 18 (1997) 645-648. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-081X(199710)18:7<645::AID- BDD50>3.0.CO;2-3. [14] Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd. Olopatadine Drug Product Information. https://medical.kyowakirin.co.jp/site/drugpdf/interv/alk_in.pdf. [15] A. Avdeef. Absorption and Drug Development: Solubility, Permeability, and Charge State, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. Print ISBN:9781118057452 [16] G.K. Dresser, D.G. Bailey, B.F. Leake, U.I. Schwarz, P.A. Dawson, D.J. Freeman, R.B. Kim. Fruit juices inhibit organic anion transporting polypeptide-mediated drug uptake to decrease the oral availability of fexofenadine. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 71 (2002) 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1067/mcp.2002.121152. [17] A. Marosi, Z. Kovács, S. Béni, J. Kökösi, B. Noszál. Triprotic acid-base microequilibria and pharmacokinetic sequelae of cetirizine. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 37 (2009) 321- 328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2009.03.001. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 https://doi.org/10.1021/mp100149j https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2010.03.011 https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-021-00674-x https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.3c00170 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2020.105543 https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.24391 https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.06.008 https://doi.org/10.1159/000524856 https://gskpro.com/ja-jp/products-info/zyrtec/index/ https://www.e-mr.sanofi.co.jp/dam/jcr:2d468ede-5f77-43ce-9d19-057401361c43/allegra.pdf https://www.e-mr.sanofi.co.jp/dam/jcr:2d468ede-5f77-43ce-9d19-057401361c43/allegra.pdf https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-081X(199710)18:7%3c645::AID-BDD50%3e3.0.CO;2-3 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-081X(199710)18:7%3c645::AID-BDD50%3e3.0.CO;2-3 https://medical.kyowakirin.co.jp/site/drugpdf/interv/alk_in.pdf https://doi.org/10.1067/mcp.2002.121152 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2009.03.001 R. Takeuchi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 12(4) (2024) 649-656 656 [18] G.P. van Balen, G. Caron, G. Ermondi, A. Pagliara, T. Grandi, G. Bouchard, R. Fruttero, P.-A. Carrupt, B. Testa. Lipophilicity behaviour of the zwitterionic antihistamine cetirizine in phosphatidylcholine liposomes/water systems. Pharmaceutical Research 18 (2001) 694-701. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011049830615. [19] K. Bittermann, S. Spycher, K.-U. Goss. Comparison of different models predicting the phospholipid- membrane water partition coefficients of charged compounds. Chemosphere 144 (2016) 382-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.08.065. [20] A. Pagliara, P.A. Carrupt, G. Caron, P. Gaillard, B. Testa. Lipophilicity profiles of ampholytes. Chemical Reviews 97 (1997) 3385-3400. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr9601019. [21] A. Ebert, C. Dahley. Can membrane permeability of zwitterionic compounds be predicted by the solubility diffusion model? European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (2024) 106819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106819. ©2024 by the authors; licensee IAPC, Zagreb, Croatia. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011049830615 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.08.065 https://doi.org/10.1021/cr9601019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106819 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/