Article

Mise au point et validation d’une méthode de dosage de la teicoplanine par chromatographie liquide à haute performance

Service de pharmacologie clinique Centre national de pharmacovigilance 9, av. Dr Zouheïre Essafi 1006 Tunis - Tunisie
Revue Francophone des Laboratoires 02/2013; 449(43):71-74. DOI: 10.1016/S1773-035X(13)71831-8

ABSTRACT Nous proposons une méthode par chromatographie liquide à haute performance
(CLHP) pour la quantification rapide de la teicoplanine sérique
après déprotéinisation, extraction, chromatographie sur une colonne C18
et détection UV-Visible (longueur d’onde : 220 nm). La phase mobile est
composée d’un mélange composé de tampon phosphate à 20 mmol/L,
méthanol et acétonitrile, 80/11/9 (v/v/v), ajusté à pH 4. Le sulfaméthoxazole
est utilisée comme étalon interne. L’étalonnage est linéaire entre 0,5
à 30 μg/ml (r = 0,99). Les limites de détection et de quantification sont
respectivement de 0,034 et 0,104 μg/mL, la répétabilité et la reproductibilité
de respectivement 1,31 à 2,64 % et 4,46 à 5,72 % à trois concentrations
différentes. Le taux de recouvrement varie de 98,14 % à 99,4 % à trois
concentrations différentes. Dans ces conditions, le temps d’analyse est
inférieur à 12 minutes.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
892 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A sensitive, highly selective and simple high-performance liquid chromatographic method for the determination of teicoplanin, a novel glycopeptide antibiotic, composed of six components, in human plasma and urine is described. After an isolation step by affinity chromatography, the antibiotic substances were chromatographed on a Nucleosil C18 column with phosphate buffer-acetonitrile according to a gradient profile. All the components were detected by their UV absorption at 240 nm. The concentration of teicoplanin was determined by using the external standard procedure. This method was applied to the sum of the six major components as well as to each of them separately. The linearity of the method was checked between 0.5 and 50 micrograms/ml for plasma and between 2 and 50 micrograms/ml for urine. The limit of detection was 0.1 microgram/ml for both biological fluids. The coefficients of variation of the between-day assays did not exceed 8.6 and 8.9% in plasma and urine, respectively. The application of the method to a pharmacokinetic study of teicoplanin after a single intravenous therapeutic dose in a patient is reported. This rapid technique also appears to be suitable for drug monitoring.
    Journal of Chromatography A 11/1987; 421(1):99-110. · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As with vancomycin, treatment with teicoplanin requires monitoring and dosage adjustment. As is often the case in dose adjustment, the decision is essentially based on measurements of trough concentrations (Cmin),i.e. 10–12 μg/ml in the case of teicoplanin. It appeared essential to validate the polarization immunoassay technique (FPIA) vs HPLC for low values as well as higher values. We compared an HPLC assay method with FPIA for the measurement of teicoplanin in the serum of 25 ICU patients (i.e. 211 samples). Equation C1 of the global correlation for HPLC vs. FPIA was: FPIA = 3.4398 + 0.8050HPLC (R = 0.9716). The Student test revealed a significant difference between the two techniques. The real difference between the two techniques was assessed by means of an accuracy test: the FPIA method appears to be inaccurate over the concentration range analyzed in the study. Further, we verified whether the FPIA technique remained constantly inaccurate over C1. A partial correlation C2 corresponding to concentrations </ 12 μg/ml (n = 112) was constructed. Application of the accuracy test led to the same conclusion as for C1: over this range of concentrations, the FPIA method remained inaccurate. The FPIA:HPLC concentration ratio, (1.09 ± 0.29 (0.49−2.15)) , indicates that the assays performed by FPIA tended to be overestimated. HPLC method remains the analytical reference and should be preferred to FPIA for the assay of TCN for pharmacokinetic or pharmacological research. For treatment monitoring, FPIA represents a simple method and also an alternative solution when HPLC is not available. Correlation observed with the reference chromatographic technique remains acceptable for concentrations of the order of 12 μg/ml and over while, for low concentrations, the FPIA method appears inaccurate.
    International Journal of Pharmaceutics 01/1997; 146(2-146):167-174. · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide indicated in serious infections due to Staphylococcus aureus and requires monitoring and dose adjustment based on measurement of trough concentration. Measurement of teicoplanin can be carried out by the fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) method or by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) methods. We aimed to compare HPLC method using the sum of the peaks of A2-2, A2-3, A2-4 and A2-5 with FPIA method. Thirty-six serum samples obtained over a 6-month period from patients treated by teicoplanin were first analyzed by a HPLC method by determining both the A2-2 peak and the sum of areas of A2-2 to A2-5 and were then stored at -20 degrees C for FPIA assay. Correlation between FPIA and HPLC A2-2 methods was as: HPLC(A2-2) = 0.694FPIA - 0.892 with r(2) = 0.93. A paired t-test revealed significant differences between the results (P < 0.001). To improve the FPIA and HPLC correlation, we performed a linear regression between FPIA and the sum of A2-2, A2-3, A2-4 and A2-5 obtained in the HPLC method: HPLC(A2-2 to A2-5) = 0.953FPIA - 0.915 with r(2) = 0.96. A paired t-test did not show any significant difference between the results of the two methods (P = 0.94). These results show a better correlation between FPIA and HPLC when the sum of A2-2 to A2-5 was used for calculations. In conclusion, HPLC(A2-2 to A2-5) must be preferred to HPLC(A2-2) for the assay of teicoplanin, even if the HPLC(A2-2 to A2-5) runtime is higher than in the HPLC(A2-2) method.
    Pathologie Biologie 12/2004; 52(10):584-8. · 1.07 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
265 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014