Cargando…

Determination of sumatriptan in human plasma using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry for pharmacokinetic study in healthy Korean volunteers

This study describes the development of an analytical method to determine sumatriptan levels in human plasma using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled with triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) and its application to a pharmacokinetic study in healthy Korean volunteers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cho, Seungil, Jegal, Moonyoung, Ohk, Boram, Kim, Bo Kyung, Gwon, Mi-Ri, Kang, Woo Youl, Seong, Sook Jin, Kim, Hyun-Ju, Lee, Hae Won, Yoon, Young-Ran
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7042010/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32133327
http://dx.doi.org/10.12793/tcp.2017.25.2.106
Descripción
Sumario:This study describes the development of an analytical method to determine sumatriptan levels in human plasma using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled with triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) and its application to a pharmacokinetic study in healthy Korean volunteers. A single 50 mg dose of sumatriptan was orally administered to twelve healthy volunteers (nine women and three men). The HPLC-MS/MS analytical method was validated with respect to its specificity, linearity, sensitivity, accuracy, precision, recovery, and stability. The calibration curve was linear over a concentration range of 0.3–100 ng/mL (r > 0.999). The lower limit of quantitation for sumatriptan in plasma was 0.3 ng/mL. The accuracy and precision of the analytical method were acceptable within 15% at all quality control levels. We compared plasma concentration-time curves as well as pharmacokinetic parameters such as the area under the curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)). Both the mean AUC and C(max) of sumatriptan were 1.56 times higher in women than in men. These differences could be largely explained by the difference in body weight (44%) between women and men. The outcomes may provide insights into developing appropriate individualized treatment strategies.