Liquid chromatographic-tandem mass spectrometric urine assay for a highly metabolized cyclic ureidobenzenesulfonamide: issues concerning assay specificity and quality control preparation

Challenges in urine bioanalytical assays: overcoming nonspecific binding

Dr Allena Ji is the Director of Bioanalytical Services, XenoBiotic Laboratories, Inc., NJ, USA. She has worked in the bioanalytical field for many years and accumulated rich experience in LC-MS/MS method development, method validation and sample analysis under GLP compliance in large pharmaceutical company and contract laboratory settings. In the past 10 years, Allena worked at Pfizer (Legacy of Wyeth) and investigated many small-molecule drug candidates for their nonspecific binding in urine assays. Nonspecific binding of compounds results in a severe underestimation of the compounds' concentrations and poor precision and accuracy in urine bioanalytical assays. To overcome nonspecific binding in urine assays, Allena and her colleagues developed a series of practical approaches for urine method development. By adding an appropriate anti-adsorptive agent at its optimum concentration to the urine collection containers, the nonspecific binding can be blocked. Urine assays have much higher hurdles than plasma assays due to nonspecific binding and variability of urine pH, salt concentration, volume and solubility of drug(s) in urine. A simple and systematic approach for urine method development is emphasized in this paper. Nonspecific binding is a very serious issue in bioanalytical urine assays where a compound(s) adsorbs to the container wall. The adsorption happens frequently in urine assays because urine lacks proteins and lipids that can bind to the analytes or solubilize lipophilic analytes. Therefore, urine bioanalytical assays tend to suffer from analyte losses more often than plasma assays. In the past decade, there have been many methods described to overcome nonspecific adsorption in urine assays based on individual analyte characteristics. However, a common and simple method development approach for various analytes has not been discussed and summarized. In this article we demonstrate, discuss and summarize a common approach to urine method development with a focus on overcoming adsorption issues. The advantages and limitations of commonly used anti-adsorptive agents, such as bovine serum albumin, zwitterionic detergents such as CHAPS, sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate, β-cyclodextrin, Tween 80 and Tween 20 are discussed.

Evaluation of the relationship between a pharmaceutical compound's distribution coefficient, log D and adsorption loss to polypropylene in urine and CSF

BACKGROUND

The distribution coefficient, D, is a physicochemical property used to determine the partitioning of compounds between aqueous and hydrophobic media at a given pH.

RESULTS

A clear relationship was observed between the calculated pH-dependent distribution coefficient of six representative pharmaceutical probe compounds and their propensity to partition between a relatively hydrophobic polypropylene surface and the aqueous matrices, human urine or human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Compound log D cut-off values of 1.5 and 3.8 for urine and CSF, respectively, were determined using a threshold of less than 20% adsorption to the polypropylene surface.

CONCLUSION

The ability to forecast the adsorption of a given compound to a polypropylene container with urine and CSF offers an effective means for screening potential issues and identifying when additional testing and corrective measures may need to be applied.

HPLC-MS/MS determination of a hardly soluble drug in human urine through drug-albumin binding assisted dissolution

ABT-263 is under development for treatment of cancer. In order to support clinical trials, an analytical method for ABT-263 quantification in human urine became necessary. Due to the extremely poor solubility of ABT-263 in aqueous and most common organic solvents, a critical step was to dissolve the drug into urine matrix. Although other potential approaches could be used, addition of powder albumin was found to be the most advantageous. Albumin powder does not significantly alter urine sample volume (< or = 2.8%) and a range of albumin to urine sample volume ratios can be allowed for full recovery of drug and thus accurate quantification. The procedure is fairly simple and can potentially be a universal approach for compounds with low solubility in urine, but strong protein binding. The method has been validated to support clinical trials.