3.8 Article

Rapid Quantification of Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (MPA) in Human Plasma by LC-MS/MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 1, 期 2, 页码 202-213

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/jalm.2016.020511

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infective Diseases (NIAID) [R01 AI110371-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) is a common contraceptive agent taken both orally and as a subcutaneous or intramuscular injection. Current LC-MS/MS methods for MPA quantification require large sample volumes and low-throughput analytical run times. Therefore, there are opportunities to improve upon existing methods for MPA quantification. Methods: MPA was extracted from 600 mu L plasma, evaporated to dryness, and the reconstituted solution was injected onto a Waters Acquity liquid chromatography (LC) system via an Agilent Zorbax Eclipse-Plus C18 2.1 x 50 mm (5.0 mu m) column. MPA and its internal standard were monitored on a QTRAP (R) 5500 mass analyzer operated in positive ionization mode. The method was validated according to the Food and Drug Administration Bioanalytical Method Validation guidelines. Results: The analytical measuring range of the assay was 200-10 000 pg/mL. QC samples prepared at the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ; 200 pg/mL) and low (600 pg/mL), mid (1750 pg/mL), and high (8500 pg/mL) levels showed interassay precision and accuracy <= 15.2% and <=+/- 9.6%, respectively. Stability-challenged samples yielded <= 15% from freshly prepared samples. Dilutional and matrix effects studies were also acceptable. The assay was also assessed in participants prescribed depot medroxyprogesterone acetate; observed concentrations were within the dynamic range of the assay. Conclusions: An LC-MS/MS method for the quantification of MPA in plasma has been developed and validated. The described method is sufficiently sensitive and robust to quantify MPA in plasma and meets the criteria to support clinical trials.

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

3.8
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