ABSTRACT
Aim: To develop an LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous determination of duloxetine and its metabolite, 4-hydroxy duloxetine glucuronide (4HDG) in human plasma and to investigate the potential back-conversion of 4HDG to duloxetine using stability study. Materials & methods: The LC-MS/MS method was validated according to the EMA and USFDA Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidelines and applied to pilot bioequivalence study. Results & conclusion: The method validation results were within the acceptance limits. The stability study and incurred sample reanalysis results ruled out the occurrence of back-conversion. The study highlighted the conduct of back-conversion test and the advantages of LC-MS/MS method in terms of sensitivity, specificity and low consumption of organic solvents.
Subject(s)
Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid , Duloxetine Hydrochloride/blood , Tandem Mass Spectrometry , Adolescent , Adult , Area Under Curve , Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid/standards , Duloxetine Hydrochloride/administration & dosage , Duloxetine Hydrochloride/pharmacokinetics , Duloxetine Hydrochloride/standards , Glucuronides/chemistry , Half-Life , Humans , Quality Control , ROC Curve , Tandem Mass Spectrometry/standards , Therapeutic Equivalency , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Preprocedural bowel preparation is necessary for optimal colonoscopy visualisation. However, it is challenging to achieve high-quality bowel preparation among patients scheduled for colonoscopy. This study aims to evaluate the impact of an intensive patient educational programme on the quality of bowel preparation. DESIGN: An accessor-blinded randomised controlled trial was carried out at the outpatient surgical clinic of a tertiary hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to the control group (received standard written and verbal instructions) or the experimental group (received an intensive and structured educational programme). All subjects completed a questionnaire before colonoscopy to assess their compliance, acceptability, and tolerability towards bowel preparation regime. Quality of bowel preparation was determined using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). RESULTS: A total of 300 subjects who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were recruited. The experimental group had a significantly higher proportion of good quality bowel preparation than the control group (98.7% vs 52.3%, p<0.001). The median total BBPS score was also significantly higher in the experimental group (8 vs 5, p<0.001). Factors associated with good quality of bowel preparation included educational programme (OR: 22.79, 95% CI: 4.23 to 122.85, p<0.001), compliance to bowel cleansing agent (OR: 24.98, 95% CI 3.12 to 199.71, p<0.001), very difficult acceptability of preparation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38, p<0.001), tolerability towards bowel preparation (OR: 4.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 17.20, p<0.011) and hypomotility drugs (OR: 3.03, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.91, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: An intensive patient educational programme can significantly improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
