Quantitative determination of domperidone in human plasma by ultraperformance liquid chromatography with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry
A simple and sensitive liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method was developed and validated for determining domperidone in human plasma. The analyte and internal standard (IS; mosapride) were isolated from plasma samples by protein precipitation with methanol (containing 0.1% formic aci...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Biomedical chromatography 2008-04, Vol.22 (4), p.433-440 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A simple and sensitive liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method was developed and validated for determining domperidone in human plasma. The analyte and internal standard (IS; mosapride) were isolated from plasma samples by protein precipitation with methanol (containing 0.1% formic acid). The chromatographic separation was performed on an Xterra MS C18 Column (2.1 × 150 mm, 5.0 µm) with a gradient programme mobile phase consisting of 0.1% formic acid and acetonitrile at a flow rate of 0.30 mL/min. The total run time was 4.0 min. The analyses were carried out by multiple reaction monitoring using the parent‐to‐daughter combinations m/z 426 → 175 and m/z 422 → 198 (IS). The areas of peaks from the analyte and IS were used for quantification of domperidone. The method was validated according to the FDA guidelines on bioanalytical method validation. Validation results indicated that the lower limit of quantification was 0.2 ng/mL, and the assay exhibited a linear range of 0.2–60.0 ng/mL and gave a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.999 or better. Quality control samples (0.4, 0.8, 15 and 50 ng/mL) in six replicates from three different analytical runs demonstrated an intra‐assay precision (RSD) 4.43–6.26%, an inter‐assay precision 5.25–7.45% and an overall accuracy (relative error) of |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0269-3879 1099-0801 |
DOI: | 10.1002/bmc.952 |