ArticleChemistry Central journal2014
Development and validation of LC/MS/MS method for the simultaneous determination of montelukast, gliclazide, and nifedipine and its application to a pharmacokinetic study.
Article in Chemistry Central journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigation of the bioequivalence of montelukast chewable tablets after a single oral administration using a validated LC-MS/MS method.Drug design, development and therapy · 2015Trial
- Gliclazide in Binary and Ternary Systems Improves Physicochemical Properties, Bioactivity, and Antioxidant Activity.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022Article
- Determination of Montelukast in Plasma Using β - Cyclodextrins Coated on CoFe2O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles in Luminol-H2O2 Chemiluminescence System Optimized by Doehlert Design.Journal of fluorescence · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMontelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist for treatment of asthma, gliclazide is an oral hypoglycemic antidiabetic agent, and nifedipine is a calcium channel blocker used for treatment of angina pectoris and hypertension. These drugs may be prescribed to patients suffering from these chronic diseases. A survey of the literature reveals that there is no reported method for the simultaneous determination of montelukast, gliclazide, and nifedipine in pharmaceutical preparations or biological fluids.
resultsA simple, sensitive, and rapid method for the simultaneous quantification of montelukast, gliclazide, and nifedipine in human plasma was developed and validated. Montelukast, gliclazide, and nifedipine were resolved using rapid resolution LC/MS/MS Agilent system and SB-C18 (50 × 4.6 mm) 1.8 μm particle size column. The mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile: 0.1% formic acid (84:16). The three drugs were simultaneously extracted from plasma by protein precipitation with acetonitrile using zaferolukast as an internal standard. The method was validated according to FDA guidelines with good reproducibility and linearity of 0.999 and the limits of quantification were 0.11, 0.04, and 0.07 ng/mL for montelukast, gliclazide, and nifedipine, respectively. The accuracies of the three QCs for the three drugs were 99.48% (montelukast), 106.53% (gliclazide), and 108.03% (nifedipine) in human plasma. The validated method was applied to a pharmacokinetic study in human volunteers after oral administration of the three drugs. The applied LC/MS/MS method was shown to be sufficiently sensitive and suitable for pharmacokinetic studies.
conclusionThe LC/MS/MS method was validated and successfully applied for the determination of montelukast, gliclazide, and nifedipine concentrations in human plasma.
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.