4.6 Article

Development and validation of an ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for the quantification of daptomycin in human plasma

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2011.04.019

关键词

Daptomycin; Ultra performance liquid chromatography; Tandem mass spectrometry; Human plasma; Quantification; Validation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rapid, simple and accurate analytical method based on ultra performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) combined with electrospray ionization (ESI) tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) on a hybrid q TOF instrument has been developed and fully validated for the quantification of daptomycin (DPT) in human plasma. The samples were analyzed after simple pretreatment involving protein precipitation, while chromatographic separation of DPT and the internal standard (reserpine) was achieved on an Acquity BEH C18 column (100 mm x 2.1 mm, 1.7 mu m) using gradient elution with 0.1% aqueous formic acid (FA) and acetonitrile with 0.1% FA (with DPT eluting at 2.60 min). The method presented good fit (r > 0.999) over the quantification range of 0.01-10 mu g mL(-1) with the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) being 0.01 mu g mL(-1) of human plasma for OPT. The intra- and inter-day precision, measured as % relative standard deviation, was less than 11% for DPT. The validation results showed that the developed method demonstrated adequate selectivity, sensitivity, precision and accuracy and therefore was successfully applied to the analysis of clinical samples following intravenous (iv) administration of 5.4 mg kg(-1) DPT to patients suffering from post-traumatic osteomyelitis induced by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The developed methodology is the first report of an accurate mass tandem MS method for the analysis of this potent antibiotic in human plasma and can be used to further study pharmacokinetic, bioequivalence and even metabolic aspects related to this drug. (C) 2011 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

4.6
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