4.5 Article

Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for simultaneous quantification of bisoprolol, ramiprilat, propranolol and midazolam in rat dried blood spots

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2014.03.009

关键词

Dried blood sample; Bisoprolol; Ramiprilat; Propranolol; Midazolam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling represents a suitable method for pharmacokinetic studies in rats, particularly if serial sampling is needed. To study the pharmacokinetics of drugs in a rat heart failure (HF) model, we developed and validated a method for the simultaneous determination of bisoprolol, ramiprilat, propranolol and midazolam in DBS samples. Bisoprolol and ramipril are widely used in the treatment of HF, and midazolam and propranolol are markers of hepatic metabolism, which can be altered in HF. A 20 mu L sample of rat blood was pipetted onto Whatman 903 Protein Saver Card and allowed to dry. The whole spot was excised and 300 mu L of solvent (methanol with 10% ultrapure water and 0.1% formic acid) was added. After mixing and incubating the sample in an ultrasonic bath, a mixture of isotopically labeled internal standards was added. After centrifugation, the extracts were cleaned on an Ostro (TM) plate and analyzed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy. The method was successfully validated. No significant interference was observed in the retention times of analytes or internal standards. The intraday and interday accuracy and precision were within a +/- 15% interval. The method was linear in the range 5-250 mu g/L and the lower limit of quantification was 5 mu g/L for all four analytes. The absolute matrix effect ranged from 98.7% for midazolam to 121% for ramiprilat. The recovery was lowest for ramiprilat and highest for propranolol. Samples were stable at all tested temperatures. The method has been used successfully in a real-time pharmacokinetic study in rats. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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