| Literature DB >> 22896817 |
Bhupendrasinh Vaghela1, Surendra Singh Rao, Annarapu Malleshwar Reddy, Panuganti Venkatesh, Navneet Kumar.
Abstract
A novel stability-indicating gradient RP-UPLC method was developed for the quantitative determination of process related impurities and forced degradation products of fexofenadine HCl in pharmaceutical formulations. The method was developed by using Waters Aquity BEH C18 (100 mm x 2.1 mm) 1.7 μm column with mobile phase containing a gradient mixture of solvent A (0.05% triethyl amine, pH adjusted to 7.0 with ortho-phosphoric acid) and B (10:90 v/v mixture of water and acetonitrile). The flow rate of mobile phase was 0.4 mL/min with column temperature of 30°C and detection wavelength at 220nm. Fexofenadine HCl was subjected to the stress conditions including oxidative, acid, base, hydrolytic, thermal and photolytic degradation. Fexofenadine HCl was found to degrade significantly in oxidative stress conditions, and degradation product was identified and characterized by ESI-MS/MS, (1)H and (13)C NMR spectroscopic method as the N-oxide 2-[4-(1-hydroxy-4-{4-[hydroxy(diphenyl)methyl]-1-oxido-piperidin-1-yl}butyl)phenyl]-2-methylpropanoic acid. The degradation products were well resolved from fexofenadine and its impurities. The mass balance was found to be satisfactory in all the stress conditions, thus proving the stability-indicating capability of the method. The developed method was validated as per ICH guidelines with respect to specificity, linearity, limit of detection and quantification, accuracy, precision and robustness.Entities:
Keywords: Fexofenadine; Forced degradation; Identification; Stability-indicating; UPLC; Validation; characterization
Year: 2012 PMID: 22896817 PMCID: PMC3383222 DOI: 10.3797/scipharm.1111-07
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Pharm ISSN: 0036-8709
Fig. 1.Structures and chemical names of Fexofenadine HCl and its impurities
Fig. 2.Mass spectrum of N-oxide impurity
NMR assignments of fexofenadine and N-oxide impurity.
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | – | – | – | 144.2 | – | – | 144.1 |
| 2,6 | 2H | 7.24–7.57 | – | 125.2 | 7.10–7.30 | – | 125.3 |
| 3,5 | 2H | 7.51 | d, 7.5 | 125.5 | 7.50 | d, 7.4 | 125.7 |
| 4 | – | – | – | 143.8 | – | – | 143.5 |
| 7 | – | – | – | 45.7 | – | – | 45.5 |
| 7′,7″ | 6H | 1.42 | s | 26.6 | 1.45 | s | 26.5 |
| 8 | – | – | – | 178.1 | – | – | 177.6 |
| 9 | 1H | 4.51 | t, 6.5 | 71.4 | 4.51 | t, 6.5 | 71.3 |
| 10 | 2H | 1.28 | m | 35.8 | 1.76 | m | 36.1 |
| 11 | 2H | 1.56 | m | 20.8 | 1.76 | m | 20.0 |
| 12 | 2H | 3.38 | t,12.0 | 68.3 | 2.92 | t, 12.0 | 56.1 |
| 14 | 2H | 3.52 | m | 61.9 | 2.92 | m | 51.6 |
| 15 | 2H | 3.52 | m | 62.0 | 3.44 | m | 51.6 |
| 16,17 | Ha | 1.80–1.92 | m | 22.5 | 1.76 | m | 24.0 |
| He | 2.08 | m | – | m | – | ||
| 18 | 1H | 2.83 | t, 12.0 | 40.4 | 2.92 | t, 12.0 | 40.9 |
| 19 | – | – | – | 78.1 | – | – | 78.3 |
| 20,20′ | – | – | – | 146.6 | – | – | 146.7 |
| 21,21′ | 2H | 7.24–7.57 | – | 125.6 | 7.10–7.30 | – | 125.7 |
| 22,22′ | 2H | 7.24–7.57 | – | 128.0 | 7.10–7.30 | – | 128.0 |
| 23,23′ | 2H | 7.24–7.57 | – | 126.1 | 7.10–7.30 | – | 126.1 |
| 24,24′ | 2H | 7.24–7.57 | – | 127.9 | 7.10–7.30 | – | 127.9 |
| 25,25′ | 2H | 7.24–7.57 | – | 125.7 | 7.10–7.30 | – | 125.7 |
Refer to Fig. 4 the structural formula for numbering;
This column gives the 1H-1H multiplicity and coupling constants; s…Singlet; d…Doublet; t…Triplet; m…Multiplet.
System suitability test results
| Resolution | ≥ 3.0 | 7.3 | 6.9 |
| Area ratio | ≥ 0.9 and ≤ 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| USP Tailing | ≤ 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.9 |
| USP plate counts | ≥ 5000 | 21047 | 14824 |
Resolution between fexofenadine and Imp-B.
Fig. 3.Typical chromatograms of (A) Placebo, (B) Acid degradation sample, (C) Peroxide degradation sample, (D) Thermal degradation sample and (E) Fexofenadine test spiked with its impurities
Summary of forced degradation results
| Acid hydrolysis | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | ND | 0.49 | 0.60 | 97.8 | 98.4 |
| Base hydrolysis | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ND | 0.03 | 0.18 | 100.5 | 100.7 |
| Oxidation degradation | 1.72 | 0.05 | ND | ND | 0.05 | 1.98 | 99.0 | 101.0 |
| Thermal Degradation | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.03 | ND | 0.08 | 0.80 | 102.9 | 103.7 |
| Water Degradation | ND | 0.03 | ND | ND | ND | 0.03 | 101.6 | 101.6 |
| Photolytic degradation | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | ND | 0.03 | 0.00 | 101.1 | 101.1 |
| Humidity Degradation | ND | 0.02 | ND | ND | ND | 0.02 | 101.0 | 101.0 |
MUSI…Maximum un-specified impurity; ND…Not detected.
Linearity and precision data
| LOD (μg/mL) | 0.196 | 0.166 | 0.190 | 0.159 |
| LOQ (μg/mL) | 0.588 | 0.496 | 0.571 | 0.476 |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.999 |
| Intercept (a) | 361.70 | 13.66 | 249.36 | −478.95 |
| Slope (b) | 5814.98 | 6080.89 | 5118.69 | 6830.94 |
| Bias at 100% response | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Precision (%RSD) | 2.9 | 0.4 | 2.6 | 3.0 |
| Intermediate precision (%RSD) | 3.2 | 0.8 | 5.1 | 3.6 |
| Precision at LOQ (%RSD) | 3.3 | 2.4 | 4.8 | 2.8 |
Recovery data
| LOQ | 92.6 ± 2.3 | 104.9 ± 3.5 | 93.1 ± 3.4 | 94.1 ± 1.5 |
| 50% | 107.0 ± 1.3 | 106.6 ± 0.6 | 107.8 ± 1.0 | 104.2 ± 3.5 |
| 75% | 94.8 ± 1.9 | 108.6 ± 2.2 | 95.4 ± 2.8 | 97.2 ± 3.9 |
| 100% | 96.7 ± 0.4 | 104.1 ± 0.6 | 95.1 ± 3.0 | 92.3 ± 2.6 |
| 125% | 98.3 ± 1.2 | 102.3 ± 2.3 | 96.7 ± 1.7 | 94.3 ± 1.7 |
| 150% | 103.0 ± 0.9 | 107.2 ± 1.0 | 107.5 ± 1.8 | 100.2 ± 0.9 |
Amount of four impurities spiked with respect to specification level;
Mean ± %RSD for three determinations.
Robustness results of UPLC method
| Column Temperature 25°C | 1.0 | 5.9 | 0.9 | 14654 |
| Column Temperature 35°C | 1.0 | 6.3 | 0.9 | 16417 |
| Flow rate 0.36 mL/min | 1.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 16309 |
| Flow rate 0.44 mL/min | 1.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 11590 |
| Acetonitrile 90% | 1.0 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 23488 |
| Acetonitrile 110% | 1.0 | 5.9 | 0.9 | 11434 |
| Mobile Phase Buffer pH 6.8 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 12061 |
| Mobile Phase Buffer pH 7.2 | 1.0 | 5.4 | 1.0 | 13461 |
Resolution between fexofenadine and Imp-B.