4.6 Article

Cost-effective, green HPLC determination of losartan, valsartan and their nitrosodiethylamine impurity: application to pharmaceutical dosage forms

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.220250

关键词

losartan; valsartan; nitrosodiethylamine; process-related impurities; green chromatography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ACE inhibitors drugs containing carcinogenic impurities like NDEA have prompted the development of green and sensitive HPLC method for their detection and quantification.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are one of the most widely used anti-hypertensive drugs which are used to reduce hypertension. In 2018, the United States Food and Drug Administration together with the European Medicine Agency declared the presence of carcinogenic nitrosamine impurities such as nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) in some of the products, including valsartan (VLS) and losartan (LOS), and drugs' recall procedures were started. Thus, they should be controlled to be below the acceptable cancer risk level to ensure safety of the pharmaceutical products. Therefore, sensitive and reliable analytical methods were required for detection and quantitation of NDEA in bulk and finished drug products. Green analytical chemistry has received great interest to minimize the amount of organic solvents consumed without loss in chromatographic performance. A green and sensitive HPLC method was developed for the determination of NDEA in LOS and VLS using mobile phase of 0.02 M ammonium acetate adjusted to pH 7.2 and ethanol in gradient manner. Limits of detection and limits of quantification for NDEA were estimated to be 0.2 and 0.5 mu g ml(-1), respectively. The standardized limits of NDEA impurity in drug substances were set as 0.56 ppm, which indicates the feasibility of its determination by the proposed conventional method without need for expensive instrumentations (e.g. MS/MS detectors) that are not found in most pharmaceutical quality control laboratories.

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