Issue

Vol. 32 No. 10 (2020): Vol 32 Issue 10

Copyright (c) 2020 AJC

Creative Commons License

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

A Simple, Specific, Mass Compatible and Validated Gas Chromatographic Method for the Estimation of Piperidine-3-amine Content in Linagliptin Finished and Stability Samples without Derivatization

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2020.22817
Nagi Reddy Vuyyuru
Analytical Research and Development, IPDO, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Hyderabad, India; Department of Chemistry, JNTUH College of Engineering, J.N.T. University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500085, India
A. Malleswara Reddy
Analytical Research and Development, IPDO, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Hyderabad, India
B. Ramadevi
Department of Chemistry, JNTUH College of Engineering, J.N.T. University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500085, India
Y. Ravindra Kumar
Department of Chemistry, JNTUH College of Engineering, J.N.T. University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500085, India
B. Janaki Durga Prasad
Analytical Research and Development, IPDO, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Hyderabad, India

Corresponding Author(s) : Nagi Reddy Vuyyuru

nagirv@drreddys.com, nagirv@gmail.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 32 No. 10 (2020): Vol 32 Issue 10

Abstract

A new simple, selective, highly sensitive, specific (stability indicating), robust, rugged and mass compatible gas chromatographic method and sample with direct injection-mode was developed for the quantitative determination of amino-3-piperidine (3-aminopiperidine, 3-AMP) in linagliptin. As the CAD-LC method did not proved for specificity and pre-derivitizations are challenging task for quality control (QC), a simple GC method has been developed. Compared to LC-CAD method, which is not proved for specificity and pre-column derivitization methods having the limitations to analyze the reaction monitoring in-process samples and degradation samples, the present method is selective, simple, cost effective, QC friendly, widely available GC technique with direct injection and high in sensitivity. Also this method is mass compatible, specificity proved by forced degradation, method was validated as per ICH guidelines. Mass balance was proved by analyzing the stressed samples for net degradation by HPLC and assay by HPLC methods. This GC method also provides an advantage to analyze the in-process samples to monitor the progress of the synthetic process, where the reaction monitoring samples are unpurified or non-isolated samples and contains many process related impurities (reference) and solvents, which will have interference with 3-AMP in LC-CAD and pre-column derivitization methods. This method involves simple sample preparation process and direct injection with GC-FID technique. Hence, this method can be used to analyze the finished product samples, degradation samples, stability samples and reaction monitoring samples. The method was developed with widely available GC column (diphenyl dimethyl polysiloxane as stationary phase, 30 m length, 0.53 mm internal diameter & 5.0 μm thickness), helium as carries gas, FID detector set at 240 ºC, column oven starts at 200 ºC and starts increases after 2 min with 20 ºC/min and holds up to 11 min, which will ensure the column bake. The solvents used for the process were well separated from 3-AMP peak. Mass balance was reported > 99%. The limit of quantification and limit of detection values for 3-AMP were 0.002% (0.4 μg/mL) and 0.007% (1.4 μg/mL) of targeted concentration (20 mg/mL), respectively. The method was precise at LOQ and at specification level with %RSD values 2.8 and 4.7, respectively. Linearity was established in the range of 0.0014 mg/mL (LOQ) to 0.045 mg/mL for 3-AMP with correlation coefficient (r2 > 0.9995). The percentage recoveries were obtained between 99.9% and 104.4%. The range of the method was established from LOQ (0.0014 mg/mL) to 150% (0.045 mg/mL) of the specification targeted limit of 0.15% (0.03 mg/mL). The standard and spiked sample solutions were studied up to 2 days and are stable at room temperature. The forced degradation studies were performed by using HCl, NaOH, H2O2 thermal, UV radiation and water. A mild degradation bout 0.25% was observed in base degradation condition, which was confirmed with mass number by GC-MS analysis. Validation parameters were evaluated according to the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Q2 guidelines.

Keywords

Linagliptin Amino-3-piperidine Forced degradation Orthogonal method
Reddy Vuyyuru, N., Malleswara Reddy, A., Ramadevi, B., Ravindra Kumar, Y., & Janaki Durga Prasad, B. (2020). A Simple, Specific, Mass Compatible and Validated Gas Chromatographic Method for the Estimation of Piperidine-3-amine Content in Linagliptin Finished and Stability Samples without Derivatization. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 32(10), 2567–2572. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2020.22817
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. J.B. McGill, Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab., 3, 113 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1177/2042018812449406
  2. B. Gallwitz, Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab., 4, 95 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1177/2042018813486165
  3. B. Gallwitz, Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes., 6, 1 (2013); https://doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S23166
  4. C.F. Deacon, Diabetes Obes. Metab., 13, 7 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01306.x
  5. J.J. Neumiller, J. Clin Therap., 33, 528 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.04.024
  6. P. Allegrini, E. Attolino and M. Artico, Process for Preparation of Linagliptin, US Patent 0165525 A1 (2010).
  7. Q3A(R2) Impurities in New Drug Substances (2006). https://www.ich.org/page/quality-guidelines
  8. N. Sukumar, A. Naresh, G.B. Narashimha Reddy, P. Venkateswarlu, A.S. Prasad Reddy and K.S. Kumar Reddy, J. Pharm. Res. Opin., 5, 5 (2015).
  9. M. Eckhardt, E. Langkopf, M. Mark, M. Tadayyon, L. Thomas, H. Nar, W. Pfrengle, B. Guth, R. Lotz, P. Sieger, H. Fuchs and F. Himmelsbach, J. Med. Chem., 50, 6450 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1021/jm701280z
  10. Y. Huang, X. He, T. Wu and F. Zhang, Molecules, 21, 1041 (2016); https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules21081041
  11. S. Parsha, Y.R. Kumar and M. Ravichander, J. Liq. Chromatogr. Rel. Technol., 38, 1699 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1080/10826076.2015.1087861
  12. C.V. Kumar, P. Aparna, P.K. Vasa, Y.R. Kumar and N.H. Dhekale, Am. J. Anal. Chem., 7, 556 (2016); https://doi.org/10.4236/ajac.2016.77051
  13. S. Jadhav, R. Mane, K. Narayanan and P. Bhosale, Sci. Pharm., 84, 671 (2016); https://doi.org/10.3390/scipharm84040671
  14. C.V. Raghunadha Babu, N.R. Vuyyuru, K. Padmaja Reddy, M.V. Suryanarayana and K. Mukkanti, Chirality, 26, 775 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1002/chir.22352
  15. V. Nagireddy, G. Vamsikrishnaa, V. Malati, B. Ramadevi and Y. Ravindrakumar, J. Appl. Pharm. Sci., 7, 218 (2017) https://doi.org/10.7324/japs.2017.70732
  16. S. Dong, Z. Yan, H. Yang and Z. Long, Anal. Sci., 33, 293 (2017); https://doi.org/10.2116/analsci.33.293
  17. M. López-Nogueroles, J.L. Benedé, A. Chisvert and A. Salvador, Anal. Methods, 5, 409 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1039/C2AY26130H
  18. B.S. Kumar, K. Dwivedi and D.D. Agarwala, Int. J. Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 6, 1 (2016).
  19. X. Wang, W. Li, Henrik and T. Rasmussen, J. Chromatogr. A, 1083, 58 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2005.05.082
  20. J. Pellett, P. Lukulay, Y. Mao, W. Bowen, R. Reed, M. Ma, R.C. Munger, J.W. Dolan, L. Wrisley, K. Medwid, N.P. Toltl, C.C. Chan, M. Skibic, K. Biswas, K.A. Wells and L.R. Snyder, J. Chromatogr. A, 1101, 122 (2006); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2005.09.080
  21. H.J. Geus, J. Boer and U.A.Th. Brinkman, TrAC Trends Anal. Chem., 15, 168 (1996); https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-9936(96)00002-7
  22. M. Jwaili, Open J. Appl. Sci., 9, 683 (2019); https://doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.2019.99055
  23. P. Capitan, T. Malmezat, D. Breuillé and C. Obled, J. Chromatogr. B: Biomed. Sci. Appl., 732, 127 (1999); https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-4347(99)00273-x
  24. H. Tsugawa, Y. Tsujimoto, K. Sugitate, N. Sakui, S. Nishiumi, T. Bamba and E. Fukusaki, J. Biosci. Bioeng., 117, 122 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2013.06.009
  25. F.L. Silva, L.N. Melo, C.R. Wolf, S.M.P. Meneghetti and J.H. Bortoluzzi, J. Braz. Chem. Soc., 29, 1336 (2018); https://dx.doi.org/10.21577/0103-5053.20170232
  26. H. Zhang, Z. Wang and O. Liu, J. Pharm. Anal., 5, 223 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2015.01.005
  27. R.V.S.N. Kadiyala, Sci. Pharm., 82, 117 (2014); https://doi.org/10.3797/scipharm.1309-12
  28. ICH, Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products Q1A(R2): International Conference on Harmonization; Geneva: IFPMA (2003).
  29. ICH, Stability Testing: Photostability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products (Q1B): International Conference on Harmonization; Geneva: IFPMA (1996).
  30. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Validation of Compendial Procedures, In: United States Pharmacopoeia; The United States Pharmacopeial Convention: M.D. Rockville, USA, Chap. 1225, pp. 1640-1645 (2016).
  31. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2(R1).4; ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline (2005).
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 1