文章基本信息

标题：Development and validation of an improved HPLC-UV method for simultaneous determination of lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine and its active metabolite 10,11-dihydro-10-hydroxycarbazepine in human blood plasma and comparison with an UHPLC-MS/MS method
本地全文：下载
作者：Siyao Jin ; Qing Zhao ; Dongjie Zhang 等
期刊名称：Journal of Analytical Science and Technology
电子版ISSN：2093-3371
出版年度：2019
卷号：10
期号：1
DOI：10.1186/s40543-019-0198-9
语种：English
出版社：Korea Basic Science Institute
摘要：AbstractLamotrigine (LTG) and oxcarbazepine (OXC) are first-line drugs for epilepsy treatment. Their large pharmacokinetics variabilities and relations between efficacy and toxicity and blood plasma concentration require routine monitoring for dose adjustment. In this study, we developed and validated a simple, accurate, and reliable method for simultaneous determination of LTG, OXC and 10,11-dihydro-10-hydroxycarbazepine (MHD) in human blood plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV) with a simple one-step protein precipitation using methanol (1% acetic acid) and 15 min elution time under isocratic elution at 1 mL/min. Calibration range was 2.4 to 120 mg/L for LTG, OXC, and MHD. The intra-day and inter-day bias were − 8.84 to 4.18%, and the imprecision was less than 8.08% for all analytes. The internal standard (fluconazole) normalized recovery was 96.30 to 107.69% for LTG, 98.51 to 111.04% for MHD, and 95.04 to 109.86% for OXC. A total of 186 LTG samples and 25 MHD samples were used to evaluate the agreement between HPLC-UV and ultra-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) by Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plot. The mean bias and the 95% limits of agreement (95% LOA) of the two measurements were 0.575 mg/L and − 1.238 to 2.387 mg/L for LTG (n= 186) and − 1.222 mg/L and − 8.271 to 5.827 mg/L for MHD (n= 25), which indicated the UV method was comparable with the MS method for LTG and MHD analysis.
关键词：HPLC-UV;Lamotrigine;Oxcarbazepine;10,11-Dihydro-10-hydroxycarbazepine;Method comparison