Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 266–270 | Cite as

Reversed-Phase HPLC Method for Determination of Temozolomide in Rat Plasma and Brain: Simple, Sensitive and Robust Method

  • Zenab Attari
  • Lalit Kumar
  • C. Mallikarjuna Rao
  • K. B. Koteshwara
Article
  • 57 Downloads

A simple and sensitive HPLC method was developed and validated to detect an anti-glioma drug (temozolomide) in rat plasma and brain. The drug and internal standard (metronidazole) were eluted at proper retention times using BDS C18 column and selected mobile phase (ammonium formate – acetonitrile). The proposed method showed specificity and linearity with R2 values of 0.9964 and 0.9978 in plasma and brain, respectively. Other parameters such as intraday and interday precision were found to be within acceptable limits. The LOD and LOQ were 84 and 255 ng/mL, respectively. The drug recovery from the spiked plasma varied from 43 to 52%. Furthermore, stability of the method was evaluated and it was found that the drug exhibited good stability except at room temperature. The percentage recovery at room temperature after 24 h was within 69 – 73%; however, the drug was stable up to 15 days at –70°C.

Keywords

temozolomide chromatography extraction stability precision recovery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. for providing temozolomide as gift sample. The authors are thankful to Manipal University for providing the opportunity to carry out the present study. The authors also thank UGC-MANF for awarding the fellowship.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Reyderman, P. Statkevich, C. M. Thonoor, et al., Xenobiotica, 34(5), 487 – 500 (2004).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Product Monograph: Temodal, Merck Canada Inc., October 12 (2012).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Jain, R. Athawale, A. Bajaj, et al., J. Chromatogr. B, Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci., 970, 86 – 94 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Kim, P. Likhari, D. Parker, et al., J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 24, 461 – 468 (2001).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Gilant, M. Kaza, A. Szlagowska, et al., Acta Polon. Pharm., 69(6), 1347 – 1355 (2012).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Andrasi, B. Torzsok, A. Klekner, et al., J. Chromaogrt. B, Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life sci., 879(23), 2229 – 2233 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline and Methodology Q2 (R1), ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline, Validation of analytical procedures: Text and Methodology Q2 (R1), International Conference on Harmonization. Geneva, Switzerland (2005).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. P. Chhetri, P. Thapa, and A. V. Schepdael, Saudi Pharm. J., 22(5), 483 – 487 (2014).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Z. Attari, L. Kumar, C. M. Rao, et al., Lat. Am. J. Pharm., 35, 967 – 971 (2016).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. S. Grumbach, D. M. Wagrowski-Diehl, and J. R. Mazzeo, LC-GC North Am., 22(10), 1010 – 1023 (2004).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zenab Attari
    • 1
  • Lalit Kumar
    • 1
  • C. Mallikarjuna Rao
    • 1
  • K. B. Koteshwara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutics, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical SciencesManipal UniversityManipalIndia

Personalised recommendations