Dataset Information

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Epinastine Using Developed Human Plasma Assays.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to develop two new methods, HPLC-UV and UPLC-MS/MS, for quantifying epinastine in human plasma and to compare pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters obtained using them. Even in the same sample, there may be a difference in the quantitative value of drug depending on the assay, so that minor changes in PK parameter values may affect drug dose and usage settings. Therefore, selection and establishment of analytical methods are very important in PK studies of drugs, and a comparison of PK parameters according to analytical methods will be vital. For this study of PK parameter change, we newly developed two methods, HPLC-UV and UPLC-MS/MS, which are most commonly used to quantify epinastine concentrations in human plasma. All developed methods satisfied the international guidelines and criteria for successful application to PK study of 20 mg epinastine hydrochloride tablets after oral administration to twenty-six humans. A comparison of these two methods for in vivo analysis of epinastine was performed for the first time. This comparison study confirmed that different dose and usage settings might be possible based on PK parameters calculated using other analyses. Such changes in calculated PK parameters according to analytical methods would be crucial in the clinic.

SUBMITTER: Jeong SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6983027 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Epinastine Using Developed Human Plasma Assays.

Jeong Seung-Hyun SH Jang Ji-Hun JH Cho Hea-Young HY Lee Yong-Bok YB

Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 20200103 1

The purpose of the study was to develop two new methods, HPLC-UV and UPLC-MS/MS, for quantifying epinastine in human plasma and to compare pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters obtained using them. Even in the same sample, there may be a difference in the quantitative value of drug depending on the assay, so that minor changes in PK parameter values may affect drug dose and usage settings. Therefore, selection and establishment of analytical methods are very important in PK studies of drugs, and a com ...[more]

PMID: 31947890

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The debate about the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) has focused attention on the analytical performance of all clinical laboratory testing. This study provides data comparing the performance of LDTs and FDA-approved companion diagnostics (FDA-CDs) in proficiency testing (PT) provided by the College of American Pathologists Molecular Oncology Committee. Objective:To compare the analytical performance of LDTs and FDA-CDs on well-characterized PT samples and to compare the practice characteristics of laboratories using these assays. Design, Setting, and Participants:This comparison of PT responses examines the performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists PT for 3 oncology analytes for which both FDA-CDs and LDTs are used: BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. A total of 6897 PT responses were included: BRAF (n = 2524; 14 PT samples), EGFR (n = 2216; 11 PT samples), and KRAS (n = 2157, 10 PT samples). US Food and Drug Administration companion diagnostics and LDTs are compared for both accuracy and preanalytic practices of the laboratories. Main Outcomes and Measures:As per the College of American Pathologists PT standards, results were scored and the percentages of acceptable responses for each analyte were compared. These were also broken down by the specific variants tested, by kit manufacturer for laboratories using commercial reagents, and by preanalytic practices. Results:From analysis of 6897 PT responses, this study demonstrates that both LDTs and FDA-CDs have excellent performance overall, with both test types exceeding 97% accuracy for all 3 genes (BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS) combined. Rare variant-specific differences did not consistently favor LDTs or FDA-CDs. Additionally, more than 60% of participants using an FDA-CD reported adapting their assay from the approved procedure to allow for a greater breadth of sample types, minimum tumor content, and instrumentation, changing the classification of their assay from FDA-CD to LDT. Conclusions:This study demonstrates the high degree of accuracy and comparable performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs for 3 oncology analytes. More significantly, the majority of laboratories using FDA-CDs have modified the scope of their assay to allow for more clinical practice variety, rendering them LDTs. These findings support both the excellent and equivalent performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs in clinical diagnostic testing.

Project description:ImportanceBlood-based tests for brain amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology are needed for widespread implementation of Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers in clinical care and to facilitate patient screening and monitoring of treatment responses in clinical trials.ObjectiveTo compare the performance of plasma Aβ42/40 measured using 8 different Aβ assays when detecting abnormal brain Aβ status in patients with early AD.Design, setting, and participantsThis study included 182 cognitively unimpaired participants and 104 patients with mild cognitive impairment from the BioFINDER cohort who were enrolled at 3 different hospitals in Sweden and underwent Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma collection from 2010 to 2014. Plasma Aβ42/40 was measured using an immunoprecipitation-coupled mass spectrometry developed at Washington University (IP-MS-WashU), antibody-free liquid chromatography MS developed by Araclon (LC-MS-Arc), and immunoassays from Roche Diagnostics (IA-Elc); Euroimmun (IA-EI); and Amsterdam University Medical Center, ADx Neurosciences, and Quanterix (IA-N4PE). Plasma Aβ42/40 was also measured using an IP-MS-based method from Shimadzu in 200 participants (IP-MS-Shim) and an IP-MS-based method from the University of Gothenburg (IP-MS-UGOT) and another immunoassay from Quanterix (IA-Quan) among 227 participants. For validation, 122 participants (51 cognitively normal, 51 with mild cognitive impairment, and 20 with AD dementia) were included from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative who underwent Aβ-PET and plasma Aβ assessments using IP-MS-WashU, IP-MS-Shim, IP-MS-UGOT, IA-Elc, IA-N4PE, and IA-Quan assays.Main outcomes and measuresDiscriminative accuracy of plasma Aβ42/40 quantified using 8 different assays for abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 and Aβ-PET status.ResultsA total of 408 participants were included in this study. In the BioFINDER cohort, the mean (SD) age was 71.6 (5.6) years and 49.3% of the cohort were women. When identifying participants with abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 in the whole cohort, plasma IP-MS-WashU Aβ42/40 showed significantly higher accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90) than LC-MS-Arc Aβ42/40, IA-Elc Aβ42/40, IA-EI Aβ42/40, and IA-N4PE Aβ42/40 (AUC range, 0.69-0.78; P < .05). Plasma IP-MS-WashU Aβ42/40 performed significantly better than IP-MS-UGOT Aβ42/40 and IA-Quan Aβ42/40 (AUC, 0.84 vs 0.68 and 0.64, respectively; P < .001), while there was no difference in the AUCs between IP-MS-WashU Aβ42/40 and IP-MS-Shim Aβ42/40 (0.87 vs 0.83; P = .16) in the 2 subcohorts where these biomarkers were available. The results were similar when using Aβ-PET as outcome. Plasma IPMS-WashU Aβ42/40 and IPMS-Shim Aβ42/40 showed highest coefficients for correlations with CSF Aβ42/40 (r range, 0.56-0.65). The BioFINDER results were replicated in the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [5.4] years; 43.4% women), where the IP-MS-WashU assay performed significantly better than the IP-MS-UGOT, IA-Elc, IA-N4PE, and IA-Quan assays but not the IP-MS-Shim assay.Conclusions and relevanceThe results from 2 independent cohorts indicate that certain MS-based methods performed better than most of the immunoassays for plasma Aβ42/40 when detecting brain Aβ pathology.

Dataset Information

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Epinastine Using Developed Human Plasma Assays.

Publications

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Epinastine Using Developed Human Plasma Assays.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets