Evidence Hub

Capillary electrophoresis method for the determination of (R)-dapoxetine, (3S)-3-(dimethylamino)-3-phenyl-1-propanol, (S)-3-amino-3-phenyl-1-propanol and 1-naphthol as impurities of dapoxetine hydrochloride

Henrik Harnisch, G. Scriba

Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 2019

29 citations

Abstract

&NA; A capillary electrophoresis method was developed and validated for the determination of the purity of dapoxetine with regard to the related substances (3S)‐3‐amino‐3‐phenylpropan‐1‐ol, (3S)‐3‐(dimethylamino)‐3‐phenylpropan‐1‐ol, 1‐naphthol and the enantiomer (R)‐dapoxetine. The separation was based on a dual selector system, which was optimized by a fractional factorial resolution V + design followed by a central composite face centered design with star distance 1 and Monte Carlo simulations for defining the design space. The optimized background electrolyte consisted of a 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 6.3, containing 45 mg/mL sulfated &ggr;‐cyclodextrin and 40.2 mg/mL 2,6‐dimethyl‐&bgr;‐cyclodextrin. Separations were carried out in a 23.5/32 cm, 50 &mgr;m fused‐silica capillary employing a separation voltage of 9 kV at 15 °C. Following robustness testing using a Plackett‐Burman design the method was validated according to the International Council on Harmonization guideline Q2(R1) in the range of 0.05–1.0% relative to the dapoxetine concentration. The method was applied to the analysis of drug substance and a commercial tablet. Data regarding the enantiomeric purity of dapoxetine obtained by the capillary electrophoresis assay were comparable to the data obtained by an enantioselective HPLC method. HighlightsValidated method for purity determination of dapoxetine.Simultaneous determination of enantiomer and related substances.Application of analytical quality by…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free