ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2017
An LC-MS Assay with Isocratic Separation and On-line Solid Phase Extraction to Improve the Routine Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Busulfan in Plasma.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBusulfan (Bu) requires therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in subjects undergoing a conditioning regimen for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). To speed up the procedure and increase reproducibility, we improved our routine LC-MS/MS assay using the on-line solid-phase extraction (SPE) of samples.
methodsA protein precipitation (PP) step was performed before the on-line SPE of Bu from 200 µL of plasma spiked with octa-deuterated Bu (D8-Bu) as the internal standard. Bias was assessed with respect to our routine LC-MS/MS Bu assay with off-line extraction using the Passing-Bablok robust regression. Root cause of bias for individual samples was assessed by analyzing the regression residuals.
resultsThe method was linear in the range 37.75-2,416 ng/mL (r2>0.999), with 19.74 ng/mL LLOQ and 10.5% CV at 20 ng/mL. Precision and accuracy were both within ±5%, and neither appreciable matrix nor carryover effects were observed. The Passing-Bablok regression analysis returned a 0.99 slope (95% CI: 0.97 to 1.01) and -6.82 intercept (95% CI: -15.23 to 3.53). Residuals analysis against the 2.5th-97.5th percentiles range showed four samples with significant bias individually.
conclusionsThe method presented can be successfully employed for the routine analysis of Bu in plasmatic samples, and can replace the LC-MS/MS method with off-line extraction without any statistically significant overall bias. In this regard, samples with individual significant bias were reasonably produced by preanalytical issues which had no relation with the conversion to the on-line SPE extraction.
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.