4.4 Article

Rapid determination of five probe drugs and their metabolites in human plasma and urine by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry: application to cytochrome P450 phenotyping studies

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 18, 期 23, 页码 2921-2933

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.1704

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry method, for rapid determination of five cytochrome P450 (CYP) probe drugs and their relevant metabolites in human plasma and urine, is described. The five specific probe substrates/metabolites, caffeine/paraxanthine (CYP1A2), tolbutamide/4-hydroxytolbutamide/carboxytolbutamide (CYP2C9), omeprazole/5-hydroxyomeprazole (CYP2C19), debrisoquine/5-hydroxydebrisoquine (CYP2D6) and midazolam/1'-hydroxymidazolam (CYP3A), together with the internal standards (phenacetin and paracetamol), in plasma and urine, were extracted using solid-phase extraction. The chromatography was performed using a C-18 column with an isocratic mobile phase consisting of acetonitrile and 0.1% formic acid in water (70:30). The triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer was operated in both positive and negative modes, and multiple reaction monitoring was used for quantification. The method was validated over the concentration ranges 0.05-5 mug/mL for caffeine and paraxanthine, 0.02-2 mug/mL for tolbutamide, 0.1-20 mug/mL for 4-hydroxytolbutamide, carboxytolbutamide, debrisoquine and 5-hydroxydebrisoquine, 5-2500 ng/mL for orneprazole and 5-hydroxyomeprazole, and 1-100 ng/mL for midazolam and l-hydroxymidazolam. The intra- and inter-day precision were 0.3-13.7% and 1.9-14.3%, respectively, and the accuracy ranged from 93.5-107.2%. The lower limit of quantification varied between 1 and 100 ng/mL. The present method provides a robust, fast and sensitive analytical tool for the five-probe drug cocktail, and has been successfully applied to a clinical phenotyping study in 16 subjects. (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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