ArticleMalaria journal2009
A simple cost-effective high performance liquid chromatographic assay of sulphadoxine in whole blood spotted on filter paper for field studies.
Article in Malaria journal, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtesunate plus sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine is one of the four artemisinin-based combination therapies currently recommended by WHO as first-line treatment for falciparum malaria. Sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine is also used for intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in pregnancy. Drug use patterns and drug pharmacokinetics are important factors impacting the spread of drug resistant parasites hence it is imperative to monitor the effect of pharmacokinetic variability on therapeutic efficacy. Unfortunately, information on the pharmacokinetics of sulphadoxine in children and pregnant women with malaria is very limited. Methods for the assay of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine have been previously reported, but they are not cost-effective and practicable in analytical laboratories in low resource areas where malaria is endemic. Efforts in this study were thus devoted to development and evaluation of a simple, cost-effective and sensitive method for quantification of sulphadoxine in small capillary samples of whole blood dried on filter paper.
methodsSulphadoxine was determined in whole blood by reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography with UV detection at 340 nm. Sulisoxazole (SLX) was used as internal standard. Chromatographic separation was achieved using a Beckman Coulter ODS C18 and a mobile phase consisting of 0.05 M phosphate buffer-methanol-acetonitrile (70:17:13 V/V/V) containing 1% triethylamine solution.
resultsStandard curves from sulphadoxine-spiked blood added to filter paper were linear over the concentration range studied. Linear regression analysis yielded correlation coefficient r2>0.99 (n=6). Extraction recoveries were about 82-85%. The limit of quantification was 120 ng/ml while the within and between assay coefficient of variations were <10%. The inter-day precision was <5.8% and inter-day accuracy ranged from 4.1 to 5.3%. There was no interference from endogenous compounds or any of the commonly used anti-malarial, analgesic and anti-infective drugs with the peaks of SDX or the internal standard.
conclusionThe recovery and accuracy of determination of SDX from whole blood filter paper samples using the method described in this study is satisfactory, thus making the method a valuable tool in epidemiological studies and therapeutic drug monitoring in developing endemic countries. Furthermore, the applicability of the method in studying the pharmacokinetic disposition of SDX in a patient suggests that the method is suitable in malaria endemic areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.