| Literature DB >> 25838825 |
Rahul Singh1, Ashok K Shakya2, Rajashri Naik2, Naeem Shalan2.
Abstract
A simple, sensitive, inexpensive, and rapid stability indicating high performance liquid chromatographic method has been developed for determination of gemcitabine in injectable dosage forms using theophylline as internal standard. Chromatographic separation was achieved on a Phenomenex Luna C-18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm; 5μ) with a mobile phase consisting of 90% water and 10% acetonitrile (pH 7.00 ± 0.05). The signals of gemcitabine and theophylline were recorded at 275 nm. Calibration curves were linear in the concentration range of 0.5-50 μg/mL. The correlation coefficient was 0.999 or higher. The limit of detection and limit of quantitation were 0.1498 and 0.4541 μg/mL, respectively. The inter- and intraday precision were less than 2%. Accuracy of the method ranged from 100.2% to 100.4%. Stability studies indicate that the drug was stable to sunlight and UV light. The drug gives 6 different hydrolytic products under alkaline stress and 3 in acidic condition. Aqueous and oxidative stress conditions also degrade the drug. Degradation was higher in the alkaline condition compared to other stress conditions. The robustness of the methods was evaluated using design of experiments. Validation reveals that the proposed method is specific, accurate, precise, reliable, robust, reproducible, and suitable for the quantitative analysis.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25838825 PMCID: PMC4370102 DOI: 10.1155/2015/862592
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
Figure 1Chemical structures of gemcitabine (1) and theophylline (2).
Figure 2UV spectra of the gemcitabine in mobile phase.
Figure 3Representative chromatogram showing signals of gemcitabine and theophylline in the selected mobile phase.
Linearity data of the proposed method.
| Conc. ( | Mean peak area (gemcitabine) ( | Mean peak area (IS) | Mean area ratio | Conc. found ( | % assay |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 11556.2 | 490138.6 | 0.02358 | 0.50 | 99.0 |
| 1.0 | 22196.2 | 527242.0 | 0.04210 | 1.03 | 102.6 |
| 2.0 | 40119.6 | 516202.8 | 0.07772 | 2.05 | 102.3 |
| 5.0 | 99206.8 | 549256.6 | 0.18062 | 4.99 | 99.9 |
| 10.0 | 197702.2 | 546987.8 | 0.36144 | 10.18 | 101.8 |
| 15.0 | 298096.4 | 551610.8 | 0.54041 | 15.30 | 102.0 |
| 25.0 | 496084.0 | 560316.6 | 0.88536 | 25.19 | 100.8 |
| 40.0 | 791722.0 | 566686.4 | 1.39711 | 39.85 | 99.6 |
| 50.0 | 987580.6 | 553478.0 | 1.78432 | 50.95 | 101.9 |
|
| |||||
Accuracy of the method.
| Amount taken ( | Amount added | Amount recovered (mean ± SD) ( | % recovery (mean ± SD) | RSD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % |
| ||||
| 20 | 25 | 5 | 25.09 ± 0.10 | 100.37 ± 0.40 | 0.40 |
| 20 | 50 | 10 | 30.06 ± 0.09 | 100.19 ± 0.31 | 0.31 |
| 20 | 80 | 16 | 36.15 ± 0.21 | 100.42 ± 0.59 | 0.59 |
| 20 | 100 | 20 | 40.14 ± 0.13 | 100.34 ± 0.33 | 0.33 |
| 20 | 120 | 24 | 44.07 ± 0.06 | 100.15 ± 0.13 | 0.13 |
Precision study of the proposed method.
| Concentration ( | Intraday precision | Interday precision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conc. found | RSD | Conc. found | RSD | |
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| 1 | 0.994 ± 0.015 | 1.52 | 0.985 ± 0.018 | 1.81 |
| 5 | 5.030 ± 0.074 | 1.48 | 5.041 ± 0.092 | 1.83 |
| 20 | 19.920 ± 0.243 | 1.22 | 19.840 ± 0.280 | 1.41 |
| 30 | 29.886 ± 0.292 | 0.98 | 29.861 ± 0.233 | 0.78 |
| 45 | 44.759 ± 0.255 | 0.57 | 44.742 ± 0.326 | 0.73 |
System suitability.
| Parameters | Mean | RSD |
|---|---|---|
| Theoretical plates (Drug) | 7716 | 1.25 |
| Plates/meter | 30864 | 1.25 |
| HETP | 31.10 | 0.13 |
| Tailing factor | 1.10 | 0.11 |
| LOD ( | 0.1498 | 1.05 |
| LOQ ( | 0.4541 | 1.05 |
| Resolution (Rs) | 11.0 | 0.45 |
| Retention time of drug | 3.95 min | 1.50 |
| Retention time of IS | 7.80 min | 1.50 |
Figure 4Scaled and centered coefficient of variation (%) of (a) resolution factor, (b) tailing factor of drug, and (c) tailing factor of I.S. during robustness studies.
Figure 5Typical HPLC chromatogram of (a) gemcitabine exposed to alkaline stress (1 N NaOH, 60°C, 1 h), (b) contour plot, (c) peak purity index, and extracted UV spectra of (d) gemcitabine, (e) degraded product d-1, (f) d-2, (g) d-4, (h) d-5, and (i) theophylline.
Figure 6Typical HPLC chromatogram of (a) gemcitabine exposed to acidic stress (1 N HCl, 60°C, 1 h), (b) contour plot, (c) peak purity index, and extracted UV spectrum of (d) degraded product d-5, (e) d-7, and (f) d-8.
Stability data under different stressed conditions.
| Stress conditions | Percent gemcitabine remained | Retention time of degraded products |
|---|---|---|
| Alkaline stress (1 N, NaOH, 60°C, 1 h) | 16.1 ± 0.2% | 3.023 (d-1), 3.202 (d-2), 3.645 (d-3), 4.342 (d-4), 4.944 (d-5), and 5.375 (d-6) |
| Acidic stress (1 N HCl, 60°C, 1 h) | 95.0 ± 0.2% | 4.953 (d-5), 6.082 (d-7), and 7.131 (d-8) |
| Oxidative stress (5%, 60°C, 1 h) | 97.1 ± 0.1% | 3.772 (d-3) |
| Aqueous hydrolytic stress (60°C, 1 h) | 99.2 ± 0.1% | 4.952 (d-5) |
| Ultraviolet light (100 W/m2, 1 h) | 100.0% | 0.0 |
| Direct sunlight (1 h) | 100.0% | 0.0 |
| Aqueous stability (after 21 days) | 99.9 ± 0.1% | 0.0 |
Figure 7Typical HPLC chromatogram of gemcitabine exposed to (a) hydrolytic (H2O, 60°C, 1 h) and (b) oxidative stress (5%, 60°C, 1 h).
Comparison between analytical methods.
| S. number | Analytical method (reference) | Drugs | Column | Detection ( | Silent features and advantages. | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HPLC-PDA (Jansen et al., 2000) [ | Gemcitabine | Zorbax C-8 (5 | 275 nm | Sensitive, simple method applicable for separation of drug and degraded products. Degradated products were identified using spectroscopy. | Gradient elution. Only the degradated products of acidic stress studies were separated. Run time: 20 min. |
|
| ||||||
| 2 | HPLC (Rao et al., 2007) [ | Gemcitabine | ODS column (5 | 234 nm | Linearity range: 1–300 | High organic waste (70% acetonitrile). Stability studies not performed. |
|
| ||||||
| 3 | HPLC (Xu et al., 2014) [ | Gemcitabine and curcumin | Phenomenex C-18 (5 | 270 nm (Gem.); 420 nm (curcumin) | LOD: 0.012 | Gradient elution, narrow range of linearity, run time: 15 min. Nonstability indicating method (effect of pH and oxidation, exposure to sunlight or UV light, was not studied). |
|
| ||||||
| 4 | HPLC (Mastanamma et al., 2010) [ | Gemcitabine | C-18 (5 | 270 nm | Linearity range: 10–60 | Organic waste (40%, methanol) and low sensitivity. |
|
| ||||||
| 5 | HPLC (Kudikala et al., 2014) [ | Gemcitabine | Enable C18G column (5 | 285 nm | LOQ: 1 | Hydrolytic (aq.) and oxidative degraded products not studied. Gemcitabine shows high tailing factor. |
|
| ||||||
| 6 | HPLC (Devanaboyina et al., 2014) [ | Gemcitabine | Kromasil (5 | 247 nm | Linearity range: 50–300 | High organic waste (30% acetonitrile). Stability studies not performed. |
|
| ||||||
| 7 | HPLC (Rajesh et al., 2011) [ | Gemcitabine Capecitabine | Intersil 3, C-18 column (5 | 260 nm | Linearity range: 10–50 | High organic waste (70% acetonitrile). Stability studies not studied. |
|
| ||||||
| 8 | HPLC (Lanz et al., 2007) [ | Gemcitabine | C18 (3 | 276 nm | LOQ: 0.02 | Gradient elution, run time: 17 min. Applicable only for serum and plasma samples. Effect of pH, oxidation, or light on stability of raw material/formulation is not studied. |
|
| ||||||
| 9 | LC-MS-MS (Nussbaumer et al., 2010) [ | Gemcitabine and other anticancer drugs | — | Mass spectrometry (MS-MS) | LOQ: 0.25. | Lower accuracy (85–110%) and precision (15%). Applicable for bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies where 15% precision is permitted. Gradient elution, run time: 21 min. |
|
| ||||||
| 10 | HPTLC (Borisagar et al., 2012) [ | Gemcitabine | — | 268 nm | Linearity range: 500–3000 ng/spot. | — |
|
| ||||||
| 11 | Proposed HPLC method | Gemcitabine | Phenomenex Luna C-18 column (5 | 275 nm | LOD: 0.15 | Degraded products are separated but not quantized. |
Assay of formulations.
| Sample | Label claim (mg/vial) ( | Amount found | % assay | % RSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | ||||
| Batch 1 | 200 | 199.35 ± 0.46 | 99.7 | 0.23 |
| Batch 2 | 200 | 199.27 ± 0.52 | 99.6 | 0.26 |
| Selected parameters and their variations | −1 (lower limit) | +1 (upper limit) |
|---|---|---|
| Acetonitrile in mobile phase (%) ( | 8 | 12 |
| Final pH of the mobile phase ( | 6.8 | 7.2 |
| Column oven temperature (°C) ( | 20 | 30 |
| Flow rate (mL/min) ( | 0.8 | 1.2 |
| Exp. number | Run order |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 8 | 6.8 | 20 | 0.8 | 14.01 | 1.12 | 1.2 |
| 2 | 11 | 12 | 6.8 | 20 | 0.8 | 13.1 | 1.11 | 1.19 |
| 3 | 5 | 8 | 7.2 | 20 | 0.8 | 14.1 | 1.09 | 1.18 |
| 4 | 13 | 12 | 7.2 | 20 | 0.8 | 13.2 | 1.08 | 1.1 |
| 5 | 1 | 8 | 6.8 | 30 | 0.8 | 14.3 | 1.09 | 1.11 |
| 6 | 7 | 12 | 6.8 | 30 | 0.8 | 10.2 | 1.09 | 1.08 |
| 7 | 10 | 8 | 7.2 | 30 | 0.8 | 14.5 | 1.11 | 1.15 |
| 8 | 15 | 12 | 7.2 | 30 | 0.8 | 11.85 | 1.1 | 1.08 |
| 9 | 12 | 8 | 6.8 | 20 | 1.2 | 13.51 | 1.13 | 1.11 |
| 10 | 14 | 12 | 6.8 | 20 | 1.2 | 10.21 | 1.05 | 1.07 |
| 11 | 9 | 8 | 7.2 | 20 | 1.2 | 14.41 | 1.09 | 1.12 |
| 12 | 2 | 12 | 7.2 | 20 | 1.2 | 10.05 | 1.06 | 1.07 |
| 13 | 8 | 8 | 6.8 | 30 | 1.2 | 13.25 | 1.12 | 1.1 |
| 14 | 4 | 12 | 6.8 | 30 | 1.2 | 10.15 | 1.04 | 1.07 |
| 15 | 3 | 8 | 7.2 | 30 | 1.2 | 14.12 | 1.1 | 1.11 |
| 16 | 16 | 12 | 7.2 | 30 | 1.2 | 10.15 | 1.05 | 1.05 |
R : resolution factor, T -D: tailing factor for drug, and T -I: tailing factor for IS.