PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11605750

Multidimensional on-line solid-phase extraction (SPE) using restricted access materials (RAM) in combination with molecular imprinted polymers (MIP).

Abstract

A novel, multidimensional SPE sample-processing platform for complex fluids, which relies on the combination of small LC columns packed with restricted access materials (RAM) and molecular imprinted polymers (MIP) is described. It is called the Six-S ProcEdure (Six-SPE). Six-SPE involves a size-selective sample-separation step followed by a solvent-switch. Six-SPE efficiently removes interfering matrix components of complex aqueous samples and creates optimal conditions for selective recognition, i.e. binding of the imprinted target analyte(s). A Six-SPE analysis cycle consists of four distinct steps: 1. separation of a given sample (e.g. plasma, urine, saliva, milk, etc.) by adsorptive extraction (e.g. reversed-phase partitioning) of low molecular weight components on to the stationary phase of a RAM column and simultaneous size-exclusion, i.e. quantitative disposal of macromolecular matrix constituents to waste; 2. desorption and transfer of the extract from the RAM column on to a series-connected MIP column using a pure organic mobile phase (e.g. acetonitrile) [solvent switch]; 3. molecular recognition, i.e. selective binding of the target analyte(s) by a tailor-made MIP column; and 4. desorption and transfer of the analyte fraction on to a series-connected separation (e.g. HPLC) and/or detection system (e.g. UV, FD, MS). As a first application we coupled the Six-SPE platform to a conventional HPLC system for on-line analysis of the analgesic drug Tramadol in human plasma using LiChrospher ADS RP-18 as a RAM precolumn for the fractionation step in the first and second chromatographic dimension and a Tramadol imprinted polymer for the molecular recognition step, i.e. third chromatographic dimension.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K S Boos, C T Fleischer. 2001. Multidimensional on-line solid-phase extraction (SPE) using restricted access materials (RAM) in combination with molecular imprinted polymers (MIP).. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002160100831

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗