Introduction. Etmaben is a promising drug for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, widely studied in preclinical studies. In order to conduct phase I clinical trials, it is necessary to develop a bioanalytical method for the quantitative determination of etmaben in human blood plasma. Aim. The aim of the study is to develop and validate a method for the quantitative determination of etmaben in human blood plasma using high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (HPLC-MS/MS) for the pharmacokinetic study. Materials and methods. The determination of etmaben in human blood plasma was carried out on a Nexera XR chromatograph with a mass-selective detector LCMS-8040 (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). Sample preparation: precipitation with acetonitrile. Internal standard: promethazine. Column: Luna C18, 100 Å, 50 × 2.00 mm, 5 µm. Elution in gradient mode at a flow rate of 1.00 mL/min. Mobile phase: 0.1 % formic acid solution in water (eluent A), 0.1 % formic acid solution in acetonitrile (eluent B). Retention time for etmaben and promethazine is approximately 1.18 min and 1.15 min, respectively. Total chromatogram registration time: 4.00 min. Ionization method and mode: electrospray; negative mode for etmaben, positive mode for promethazine. Detection was carried out in the mode of multiple reaction monitoring (MRM): 249.90 → 92.15 m/z; 249.90 → 160.20 m/z (etmaben); 284.95 → 197.95 m/z (promethazine). Results and discussion. We have developed, for the first time, a method for determining etmaben and performed its full and partial validation according to current regulatory requirements. Conclusion. The method for determining etmaben in human blood plasma with a confirmed analytical range of 0.250–30.000 µg/mL has been developed and validated. The confirmed analytical range of the method based on the results of the partial validation was 0.040–35.000 µg/mL. The method was successfully applied in phase I clinical trials and can be used for other pharmacokinetic studies of etmaben.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karnakova et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: