4.6 Article

The Development of a Liquid Chromatography High-Resolution Mass Spectrometric Method for Apixaban Quantification in Dried Plasma Spots in Parallel Reaction Monitoring Mode

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr9030450

关键词

dried plasma spot; DPS; dried blood spot; apixaban; high-resolution mass spectrometry; LC-HRMS; parallel reaction monitoring

资金

  1. Russian government-funded project for ICBFM SB RAS [AAAA-A17-117020210025-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to develop and validate a rapid, sensitive, and robust LC-HRMS method for the quantification of apixaban in DPSs. Validation results showed good accuracy and precision, demonstrating the method's selectivity and robustness.
This work aimed at developing and validating a rapid, sensitive, and robust method of liquid chromatography with high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) in parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) mode for apixaban quantification in dried plasma spots (DPSs) with a simple extraction procedure. A 25 mu L sample of human plasma was placed onto Whatman 903 Protein Saver Cards and allowed to dry; 3.2 mm diameter disks were cut out from DPSs using a puncher, and 100 mu L of a working internal standard solution was added to each sample. After this, they were vortexed on a shaker for 15 min at 800 rpm and 40 degrees C and quick centrifugation (10,000x g, 10 s), and then the extracts were transferred into a 300 mu L vial for LC-HRMS. Data were acquired in PRM mode via detection of all target product ions with 10 ppm tolerance. Total analysis time was 5 min. The LC-HRMS method was validated for the 10-400 ng/mL range with R-2 > 0.99. Within this range, intra- and interday variability of precision and accuracy was <10%, and recovery was 69.7-85.1%. Apixaban was stable after brief storage at room temperature, and at 4 degrees C for up to a month. The method development and validation results proved that this LC-HRMS assay of apixaban in DPSs is selective and robust.

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