Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 411, Issue 20, pp 5187–5196 | Cite as

Paper spray high-resolution accurate mass spectrometry for quantitation of voriconazole in equine tears

  • Michaela Lerch
  • Rachel A. Allbaugh
  • Lionel Sebbag
  • Jonathan P. Mochel
  • Philipp Weller
  • David J. BortsEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

Paper spray high-resolution accurate mass spectrometry is a fast and versatile analysis method. This ambient ionization technique enables the quantitation of xenobiotics in complex biological matrices without chromatography or conventional sample extraction. The simplicity, rapidity, and affordability of the paper spray mass spectrometry (PS-MS) method make the technique especially attractive for clinical investigations where fast and affordable sample analysis is crucial. A new PS-MS method for the quantitation of voriconazole in equine tears was developed and validated. For a concentration range of 10 to 1000 ng/mL, good linearity (R2 > 0.99), inter- and intra-run precision (coefficient of variation (CV) max. 11.9%), accuracy (bias of the nominal concentration ± 13.9%), and selectivity (signal areas of the double blanks represent 0.13 ± 0.05% of the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) signal in equine tears) were observed. The quantitation of voriconazole was based on three product ions and calculated relative to the isotope-labeled internal standard, voriconazole-d3, which had a final concentration of 250 ng/mL in the standards and samples. The matrix effect of the method showed an ionization suppression by reduction of the voriconazole response to 63.6%, 70.2%, and 81.9% for 30 ng/mL, 450 ng/mL, and 900 ng/mL in equine tears compared with voriconazole in solvent (methanol:water, 50:50, v:v). The method was used to analyze 126 study samples collected for a pharmacokinetic study investigating a novel approach for treatment of fungal keratitis in horses. Therefore, the integrity of the sample dilution (n = 6, CV 6.90%, and bias of nominal concentration + 8.40%) and the carryover effect (increase from 0.33 ± 0.21% to 1.33 ± 0.89% of the signal of the LLOQ) was further investigated. To our knowledge, this method is the first application of PS-MS for quantitation of drug concentrations in tears from any species.

Keywords

Paper spray high-resolution accurate mass spectrometry Equine tears Antifungal drug Voriconazole Quantitation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Prosolia, Inc., especially Donna Hollinshead, for providing the Velox 360 paper spray system, the Velox Sample Cartridges, as well as technical support. Lastly, thanks to Eva Eckstein for help with the illustration.

Funding information

This project was financed with the Faculty Start-up Funds of Prof. Dr. Borts provided by the Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine at Iowa State University (ISU), the ISU College of Veterinary Medicine, and the ISU Office of the Vice President for Research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical conduct of research

The use of horses and all procedures in this study were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Iowa State University (protocol no. 12-16-8403-E). Horses were obtained by client donation due to severe and/or chronic lameness and following completion of our study were humanely euthanized for reasons unrelated to ophthalmic research. Horses were housed individually in stalls and provided free choice hay and water. Ophthalmic examinations were performed, and all the eyes of all horses were deemed healthy with no confounding ocular conditions.

Informed consent

All equine horse owners donated their horses to the Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine Lloyd Veterinary Medical Center. They did this by signing a form that officially transferred ownership of the horse and provided informed consent for the horses to be used for approved teaching and research procedures, both before and after euthanasia.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2019_1898_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (348 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 348 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    McKenna J, Dhummakupt ES, Connell T, Demond PS, Miller DB, Michael Nilles J, et al. Detection of chemical warfare agent simulants and hydrolysis products in biological samples by paper spray mass spectrometry. Analyst. 2017;142:1442–51.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c7an00144d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang H, Liu J, Cooks RG, Ouyang Z. Paper spray for direct analysis of complex mixtures using mass spectrometry. Angew Chem. 2010;49:877–80.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.200906314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang Z, Xu W, Manicke NE, Cooks RG, Ouyang Z. Silica coated paper substrate for paper-spray analysis of therapeutic drugs in dried blood spots. Anal Chem. 2012;84:931–8.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac202058w.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ren Y, Wang H, Liu J, Zhang Z, McLuckey MN, Ouyang Z. Analysis of biological samples using paper spray mass spectrometry: an investigation of impacts by the substrates, solvents and elution methods. Chromatographia. 2013;76:1339–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-013-2458-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu J, Manicke NE, Zhou X, Cooks RG, Ouyang Z. Paper Spray. In: Domin M, Cody R, editors. Ambient ionization mass spectrometry. Chem Commun (Camb) ; 2014. pp 389–422.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang Q, Wang H, Maas JD, Chappell WJ, Manicke NE, Cooks RG, et al. Paper spray ionization devices for direct, biomedical analysis using mass spectrometry. Int J Mass Spectrom. 2012;312:201–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2011.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manicke NE, Bills BJ, Zhang C. Analysis of biofluids by paper spray MS: advances and challenges. Bioanalysis. 2016;8:589–606.  https://doi.org/10.4155/bio-2015-0018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sherman AB, Clode AB, Gilger BC. Impact of fungal species cultured on outcome in horses with fungal keratitis. Vet Ophthalmol. 2017;20:140–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.12381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaarder JE, Rebhun WC, Ball MA, Patten V, Shin S, Erb H. Clinical appearances, healing patterns, risk factors, and outcomes of horses with fungal keratitis: 53 cases (1978-1996). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1998;213(1):105–12.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andrew SE, Brooks DE, Smith PJ, Gelatt KN, Chmielewski NT, Whittaker CJG. Equine ulcerative keratomycosis: visual outcome and ocular survival in 39 cases (1987-1996). Equine Vet J. 1998;30:109–16.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1998.tb04469.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pearce JW, Giuliano EA, Moore CP. In vitro susceptibility patterns of Aspergillus and Fusarium species isolated from equine ulcerative keratomycosis cases in the midwestern and southern United States with inclusion of the new antifungal agent voriconazole. Vet Ophthalmol. 2009;12:318–24.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-5224.2009.00721.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clode AB, Davis JL, Salmon J, Michau TM, Gilger BC. Evaluation of concentration of voriconazole in aqueous humor after topical and oral administration in horses. Am J Vet Res. 2006;67:296–301.  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.67.2.296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooks DE, Matthews A, Clode AB. Chapter 7: Diseases of the cornea. In: Gilger BC, editor. Equine ophthalmology. 3rd ed. Ames, Iowa: Wiley Blackwell; 2017. p. 252–368.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Colitz CMH, Latimer FG, Cheng H, Chan KK, Reed SM, Pennick GJ. Pharmacokinetics of voriconazole following intravenous and oral administration and body fluid concentrations of voriconazole following repeated oral administration in horses. Am J Vet Res. 2007;68:1115–21.  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.68.10.1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langman LJ, Boakye-Agyeman F. Measurement of voriconazole in serum and plasma. Clin Biochem. 2007;40:1378–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2007.07.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perfect JR, Marr KA, Walsh TJ, Greenberg RN, DuPont B, de La T-CJ, et al. Voriconazole treatment for less-common, emerging, or refractory fungal infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:1122–31.  https://doi.org/10.1086/374557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denning DW, Ribaud P, Milpied N, Caillot D, Herbrecht R, Thiel E, et al. Efficacy and safety of voriconazole in the treatment of acute invasive aspergillosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:563–71.  https://doi.org/10.1086/324620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabo JA, Abdel-Rahman SM. Voriconazole: a new triazole antifungal. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;36:630–7.  https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.19237.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dumortier G, Grossiord JL, Agnely F, Chaumeil JC. A review of poloxamer 407 pharmaceutical and pharmacological characteristics. J Pharm Res Int. 2006;23:2709–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-006-9104-4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simeone CA, Colitz CMH, Colegrove KM, Field CL, Rios C, Chandler HL, et al. Subconjunctival antimicrobial poloxamer gel for treatment of corneal ulceration in stranded California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Vet Ophthalmol. 2017;20:441–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.12447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cuming RS, Abarca EM, Duran S, Wooldridge AA, Stewart AJ, Ravis W, et al. Development of a sustained-release voriconazole-containing thermogel for subconjunctival injection in horses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:2746–54.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-20899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis JL, Salmon JH, Papich MG. Pharmacokinetics of voriconazole after oral and intravenous administration to horses. Am J Vet Res. 2006;67(6):1070–5.  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.67.6.1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Passler NH, Chan H-M, Stewart AJ, Duran SH, Welles EG, Lin H-C, et al. Distribution of voriconazole in seven body fluids of adult horses after repeated oral dosing. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2010;33(1):35–41.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2009.01099.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teng G-S, Zhao L-Z, Li X. Determination of voriconazole in human plasma by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Bulg Chem Commun. 2016;48(1):147–52.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roffey SJ, Cole S, Comby P, Gibson D, Jezequel SG, Nedderman ANR, et al. The disposition of voriconazole in mouse, rat, rabbit, guinea pig, dog, and human. Drug Metab Dispos. 2003;6(31):731–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pennick GJ, Clark M, Sutton DA, Rinaldi MG. Development and validation of a high-performance liquid chromatography assay for voriconazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.47.7.2348-2350.2003.
  27. 27.
    Sebbag L, Harrington DM, Mochel JP. Tear fluid collection in dogs and cats using ophthalmic sponges. Vet Ophthalmol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.12502.
  28. 28.
    Allbaugh RA, Sebbag L, Strong TD, Lerch M, Mochel JP, Borts DJ. Proceedings ACVO 49th Annual Conference: evaluation of voriconazole concentrations in equine tears following subconjunctival injection of concentrated antifungal combined with thermosensitive poloxamer gel. Vet Ophthalmol. 2019;22(3):E9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    FDA/CDER/PURDIEF. Bioanalytical method validation 2013.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith KM, Pucket JD, Gilmour MA. Treatment of six cases of equine corneal stromal abscessation with intracorneal injection of 5% voriconazole solution. Vet Ophthalmol. 2014;17(Suppl 1):179–85.  https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.12136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marangon FB, Miller D, Giaconi JA, Alfonso EC. In vitro investigation of voriconazole susceptibility for keratitis and endophthalmitis fungal pathogens. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(5):820–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2003.11.078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wick A, Fink G, Ternes TA. Comparison of electrospray ionization and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization for multi-residue analysis of biocides, UV-filters and benzothiazoles in aqueous matrices and activated sludge by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2010;1217(14):2088–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2010.01.079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Naccarato A, Moretti S, Sindona G, Tagarelli A. Identification and assay of underivatized urinary acylcarnitines by paper spray tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2013;405(25):8267–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7232-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Monk CS, Jeong SY, Gibson DJ, Plummer CE. The presence of minocycline in the tear film of normal horses following oral administration and its anticollagenase activity. Vet Ophthalmol. 2018;21(1):58–65.  https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.12479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sebbag L, Showman L, McDowell EM, Perera A, Mochel JP. Impact of flow rate, collection devices, and extraction methods on tear concentrations following oral administration of doxycycline in dogs and cats. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2018;34(6):452–9.  https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2018.0008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Instrumental Analytics and BioanalysisMannheim University of Applied SciencesMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary MedicineIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical Sciences, Department of Veterinary Diagnostic & Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary MedicineIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations