| Literature DB >> 28496467 |
Shiva Ghafghazi1, Taraneh Moini Zanjani1, Maryam Vosough2, Masoumeh Sabetkasaei1.
Abstract
In the present study, a comprehensive and systematic strategy was described to evaluate the performance of several three-way calibration methods on a bio-analytical problem. Parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC), alternating trilinear decomposition (ATLD), self-weighted alternating trilinear decomposition (SWATLD), alternating penalty trilinear decomposition (APTLD), and unfolded partial least squares combined with the residual bilinearization procedure (U-PLS/RBL) were applied on high performance liquid chromatography with photodiode-array detection (HPLC-DAD) data to quantify carbamazepine (CBZ) in different serum samples. Using the proposed approach, successfully quantification of CBZ in human plasma, even in the presence of diverse uncalibrated serious interfering components was achieved. Moreover, the accuracy and precision of each algorithm for analyzing CBZ in serum samples were compared using root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP), the recovery values and figures of merits and reproducibility of the analysis. Satisfying recovery values for the analyte of interest were obtained by HPLC-DAD on a Bonus-RP column using an isocratic mode of elution with acetonitrile/K2HPO4 (pH = 7.5) buffer solution (45:55) coupled with second-order calibrations. Decreas of the analysis time and less solvent consumption are some of the pluses of this method. The analysis of real samples showed that the modeling of complex chromatographic profiles containing CBZ as the target drug using any of the mentioned algorithms can be potentially benefit drug monitoring in therapeutic research.Entities:
Keywords: Carbamazepine; High-performance liquid chromatography; Multi-way algorithms; Serum
Year: 2017 PMID: 28496467 PMCID: PMC5423239
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Figure 1Chromatographic profiles, each at a single wavelength (225-370 nm), for a typical spiked serum sample with 2.35 µg L-1 of CBZ. The analyte of interest are indicated
Figure 2Overlay chromatograms including CBZ and interference (A) before elution time shifts correction and (B) after alignment
Figure 3Estimated elution time profiles retrieved by all techniques analysis this region containing CBZ (purple solid line) and interfering compound. (Color figure available online
Figure 4Spectral profiles recovered by all techniques modeling for CBZ. Comparison between the normalized pure analyte spectra for CBZ (black dot line) and the spectra reconstructed by the all techniques (red solid line). The interfering components have been shown for CBZ. (Color figure available online
Predicted concentrations of CBZ using multiway algorithms on two different serum samples spiked with different amount of analytes
| Sample | CBZ concentrations (μg mL−1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum 1 | Taken | ATLD | SWATLD | APTLD | PARAFAC | U-PLS/RBL |
| Unspiked | - | n.d | n.d | n.d | n.d | n.d |
| s1 | 0.48 | 0.39(80.4%) | 0.63(133.0%) | 0.63(133.0%) | 0.37(78.0%) | 0.38(80.4%) |
| Serum 2 | ||||||
| Unspiked | - | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| s6 | 0.85 | 0.92(108.2%) | 0.92(108.2%) | 0.92(108.2%) | 0.93(109.4%) | 0.96(113.3%) |
Recoveries in parenthesis.
Not detected.
RSD (%) for three replicates of s5 and s12 in square brackets.
Figures of merit and statistical validation results for the determination of CBZ in serum by ATLD, SWATLD, APTLD, PARAFAC and U-PLS/RBL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 92.84±12 | 97.56 ±14 | 95.99 ±14 | 93.59±13 | 86.10±14 |
|
| 1.597 | 0.670 | 0.672 | 0.507 | 0.913 |
|
| 0.037 | 0.037 | 0.033 | 0.023 | 0.096 |
|
| 0.124 | 0.124 | 0.111 | 0.076 | 0.320 |
Figure 5Second-order HPLC-DAD data of a patient’s serum sample.
Results of quantification of CBZ on three groups of morphine-dependent patients’ serum samples by ATLD, SWATLD, APTLD, PARAFAC and U-PLS/RBL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum 1 | 0.70 | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.70 |
| Serum 2 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.082 | 0.083 | 0.17 |
| Serum 3 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.15 |
| Serum 4 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.12 |
| Serum 5 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.07 |
| Serum 6 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.17 |
| Serum 7 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.10 |
| Mean | 0.19±0.22 | 0.19±0.25 | 0.22±0.25 | 0.22±0.31 | 0.21±0.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Serum 1 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 1.07 | 1.07 | 0.7 |
| Serum 2 | 0.19 | 0.23 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.2 |
| Serum 3 | 0.2 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.1 |
| Serum 4 | 0.47 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.3 |
| Serum 5 | 0.41 | 0.42 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.67 |
| Serum 6 | 0.71 | 0.8 | 0.69 | 0.88 | 0.7 |
| Serum 7 | 0.70 [3.05] | 0.75[2.75] | 0.95[2.46] | 0.95[2.46] | 0.53[5.13] |
| Mean | 0.51±0.26 | 0.58±0.25 | 0.68±0.22 | 0.71±0.26 | 0.46±0.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
| U-PLS/RBL |
| Serum 1 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 0.7 |
| Serum 2 | 0.2 | 0.23 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.2 |
| Serum 3 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.20 |
| Serum 4 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.40 |
| Serum 5 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.20 |
| Serum 6 | 0.57 | 0.23 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.50 |
| Serum 7 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 0.80 |
Groups 1-3 samples, correspond to serum samples of morphine-dependent patients, before surgery, 2 h and 12 h after surgery, respectively.
RSD (% ) for three replicates analysis of sample 7 (group 2) in square bracket.
Mean concentration values and standard deviation obtained for determination of CBZ in each group of patients.
Figure 6.Estimated chromatographic profiles by all techniques modeling for morphine-dependent serum sample (serum1) which includes CBZ (orang solid line) and one interfering component. (Color figure available online