ArticleDrug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals2019
Potential for Underestimation of d-Methylphenidate Bioavailability Using Chiral Derivatization/Gas Chromatography.
Article in Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals, 2019. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A tenable hypothesis is presented which explains disparities between older oral dl-MPH bioavailability data generated using chiral derivatization-gas chromatography versus more recent findings using chiral liquid chromatography. These disparities persist in current literature. The gas chromatographic methods found that the absolute bioavailability of d-MPH is 23% and that of l-MPH is 5% (i.e., 82% as the active d-isomer), while liquid chromatographic methods consistently report that approximately 99% of circulating MPH is d-MPH. Older methods used perfluoroacylated S-prolyl derivatizing agents which have a history of imprecision due to the susceptibility of the prolyl S-configuration to isomerize to the R-enantiomer. Accordingly, any R-prolyl impurity in the chiral derivatization reagent yields the (R,R,R)-MPH-prolyl diastereomer which, in being related as the opposite enantiomer of (S,S,S)-prolyl-MPH, co-elutes with l-(S,S)-MPH. This results in overestimation of the percent l-MPH at the expense of underestimating d-MPH. Unless compelling reasons exist to justify use of any chiral discriminators, less complex and less costly achiral analysis of plasma MPH appears appropriate for d-MPH quantitation since 99% exists as d-MPH. However, simultaneous plasma monitoring of d-MPH and l-MPH may be warranted when alterations in first-pass hepatic metabolism by carboxylesterase 1 (CES1) occurs. For example, (a) with transdermal dl-MPH delivery; (b) in cases of concomitant dl-MPH and a CES1 inhibitor, e.g., ethanol, which elevates l-MPH and d-MPH concentrations; (d) in forensic studies of intravenous or intranasal dl-MPH abuse; (e) were dl-MPH to be formulated as a free base sublingual product; or (f) as emerging advances in dl-MPH gene-dose effects warrant isomer correlations.
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.