Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 26: 702-706, 1980;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tisdall, P. A.
Right arrow Articles by Anhalt, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tisdall, P. A.
Right arrow Articles by Anhalt, J. P.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 26, 702-706, Copyright © 1980 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Liquid-chromatographic detection of thiazide diuretics in urine

PA Tisdall, TP Moyer and JP Anhalt

We describe a liquid-chromatographic procedure for detection in urine of all thiazide drugs currently used clinically. Urine is treated initially with NaBH4 to convert any chlorothiazide present to hydrochlorothiazide. The urine is acidified with NaH2PO4 (1.0 mol/L, pH 5), and thiazides are extracted with ethyl acetate. Interfering substances are then removed in two washes with 0.1 mol/L Na2HPO4 at pH 8. The ethyl acetate is evaporated and the residue redissolved in mobile phase. Thiazides are assayed by reversed-phase chromatography, with detection by ultraviolet absorption. Analytical recovery of thiazides ranged from 53 to 93%. Urines from 48 patients were so studied, and the results were compared with results by the currently used spectrophotometric method. The two methods agreed for 56% of samples. Evaluation of the discrepancies by review of patients' histories clearly showed liquid chromatography to have correctly identified seven of eight positive urines that the spectrophotometric method failed to detect. Ultraviolet scanning incorrectly identified as positive two samples, whereas liquid chromatography did not falsely identify any urines as positive. Our method was more sensitive and more specific than the spectrophotometric method.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1980 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.