4.5 Article

Center punch and whole spot bioanalysis of apixaban in human dried blood spot samples by UHPLC-MS/MS

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2015.02.023

关键词

Dried blood spot; Whole spot punch; Hematocrit effect; Liquid-liquid extraction; UHPLC-MS/MS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Apixaban (Eliquis (TM)) was developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and Pfizer to use as an antithrombotic/anticoagulant agent and has been recently approved for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. A clinical study of apixaban, sponsored by BMS and Pfizer, included a pilot exploratory portion to evaluate the potential for future drug concentration monitoring using dried blood spot (DBS) sample collection. For DBS sample collection, a fixed blood volume was dispensed onto a DBS card by either regular volumetric pipette (venous blood collection) or capillary dispenser (finger prick blood collection). A 96-well semi-automated liquid-liquid extraction sample preparation procedure was developed to provide clean extracts for UHPLC-MS/MS quantitation. Assays using both partial-spot center punch and whole spot punch were developed and validated. The linear dynamic ranges for all the analyses were from 0.5 to 500 ng/mL. The coefficient of determination (r(2)) values was >0.9944 for all the validation runs. For the center punch approach, the intra-assay precision (%CV) was within 4.4% and inter-assay precision was within 2.6%. The assay accuracy, expressed as %Dev., was within +/- 5.4% of the nominal concentrations. One accuracy and precision run was performed using the whole spot approach, the intra-assay precision (%CV) was within 7.1% and the accuracy was within +/- 8.0% of the nominal concentrations. In contrast to the center punch approach, the whole spot approach eliminated the effect of hematocrit and high lipids on the analysis of apixaban in human DBS when an accurate sample blood volume was collected on DBS cards. (C) 2015 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

4.5
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