Issue

Vol. 29 No. 8 (2017): Vol 29 Issue 8

Copyright (c) 2017 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A Highly Sensitive and Rugged LC-MS/MS Method Development and Validation for Determination of Elvitegravir in Rat Plasma: Application to Pharmacokinetic Study

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2017.20652
Varaprasad Adepu
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technologies, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada, Kakinada-533 003, India; Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, Jyothishmathi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Karimnagar-505 481, India
Eswara Venkata Nagoji Kambhayatughar
Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, Srivenkateswara College of Pharmacy, Srikakulam-532 410, India
Girija Sastry Vedula
Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam-530 003, India

Corresponding Author(s) : Varaprasad Adepu

varaprasadadepu@gmail.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 29 No. 8 (2017): Vol 29 Issue 8

Abstract

A sensitive, rugged and validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method is required for the reliable quantification of elvitegravir in rat pharmacokinetic samples. The objective of the current analytical work was to develop and validate LC-MS/MS method for the pharmacokinetic study after oral administration of elvitegravir in rats. The chromatographic separation was achieved isocratically using 5 mM ammonium formate (pH 3.0 ± 0.2): acetonitrile (30:70 v/v) on Phenomenex Luna 5 μ, C18 column (100 mm × 4.60 mm) with a flow rate and total run time of 0.6 mL/min and 4 min, respectively. The internal standard was elvitegravir D5. The linearity plots were analyzed by using 1/x2 associated with a ten-point calibration standards. The range of concentration of elvtegravir for the method validation was 20.170 to 3428.942 ng/mL (r2 ³ 0.9976). The retention times of elvitegravir and elvitegravir D5 were 1.05 ± 0.015 min and 1.06 ± 0.015 min, respectively. The % recovery for analyte and internal standard was 80.84 ± 4.99 and 85.09 ± 3.45, respectively. The % mean stability for analyte was in the range of 97.84 to 105.31. The developed and systematically validated method was effectively implemented to the pharmacokinetic analysis of rat plasma samples following oral administration.

Keywords

Elvitegravir LC-MS/MS Rat plasma Pharmacokinetics Validation
Adepu, V., Nagoji Kambhayatughar, E. V., & Vedula, G. S. (2017). A Highly Sensitive and Rugged LC-MS/MS Method Development and Validation for Determination of Elvitegravir in Rat Plasma: Application to Pharmacokinetic Study. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 29(8), 1821–1826. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2017.20652
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. T. Wills, V. Vega and A. Elvitegravir, Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs, 21, 395 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1517/13543784.2012.658914.
  2. S.L. Karmon and M. Markowitz, Drugs, 73, 213 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-013-0015-5.
  3. D. Esposito and R. Craigie, Adv. Virus Res., 52, 319 (1999); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3527(08)60304-8.
  4. D.J. Hazuda, P. Felock, W. Witmer, A. Wolfe, K. Stillmock, J.A. Grobler, A. Espeseth, L. Gabryelski, W. Schleif, C. Blau and M.D. Miller, Science, 287, 646 (2000); https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5453.646.
  5. M.R. Nagasarapu and G.S. Dannana, Indian J. Pharm. Educ. Res., 50, 205 (2016); https://doi.org/10.5530/ijper.50.1.25.
  6. P.P. Rao, D.M. Reddy and D. Ramachandran, World J. Pharm. Sci., 2, 1822 (2014).
  7. V.V. Ravindrababu, P.K. Sharma and I. Singhvi, Asian J. Chem., 26, 6233 (2014); https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2014.17196.
  8. R.R. Jampala, V.K. Kumar and A. Raju Nemala, Pharm. Methods, 5, 7 (2014); https://doi.org/10.5530/phm.2014.1.2.
  9. P. Swetha, V.V.S. Rajendra Prasad, M.B. Raju and N.S. Kumar, Indo-Am. J. Pharm. Res., 3, 4697 (2013).
  10. S.P. Parthi, K.B. Aher and G.B. Bhavar, Int. J. Pharm. Sci., 6, 369 (2015).
  11. K. Sureshbabu, S.S. Vardhan, B. Koteswararao and C. Rambabu, Pharm. Lett., 7, 205 (2015).
  12. A. Aditya, P.R. Dande, S. Deshpande and R. Nageswara Rao, J. Anal. Bioanal. Tech., 5, 146 (2014).
  13. R.N. Rao, K.G. Prasad, K.V.S. Kumar and B. Ramesh, Anal. Methods, 5, 6693 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ay41346b.
  14. Z. Djerada, C. Feliu, C. Tournois, D. Vautier, L. Binet, A. Robinet, H. Marty, C. Gozalo, D. Lamiable and H. Millart, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 86, 100 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2013.08.002.
  15. M. Aouri, A. Calmy, B.A. Hirschel, A. Telenti, T. Buclin, M. Cavassini, A. Rauch and L.A. Decosterd, J. Mass Spectrom., 48, 616 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1002/jms.3200.
  16. Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), May (2001).
  17. Guidance for Industry Food-Effect Bioanalytical and Fed Bioequivalence Studies, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Centre for Drug Evaluation and research (CDER), December (2002).
  18. Guidance for Industry Bioavailability and Fed Bio-equivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products-General Consideration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Centre for Drug Evaluation and research (CDER), March (2003).
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1 Download : 0