Fingerprint Detection Method for Pharmaceutical Preparation

Abstract

A fingerprint detection method for a pharmaceutical preparation. The detection method uses an HPLC-DAD wavelength switching method to simultaneously determine a plurality of active ingredients such as mulberroside A, hydroxysafflor yellow pigment A, paeoniflorin, ferulic acid, calycosin-7-O-β-D-glucoside, rosmarinic acid, salvianolic acid B, formononetin, etc. in the pharmaceutical preparation. The sensitivity and accuracy of the detection method are greatly enhanced so as to ensure the comprehensive evaluation of the quality of the pharmaceutical preparation.

Claims

1. A fingerprint detection method of a pharmaceutical formulation, characterized in that the steps comprise: (1) preparation of a test solution: taking and mixing an appropriate amount of the ingredients of the invention, adding 65-75% methanol for extraction, ultrasonic treating, shaking well, filtering to obtain a filtrate and a pellet, the pellet washing with 65-75% ethanol for several times, combining the ethanol washing solution into the filtrate, evaporating the filtrate, the pellet resolving with 65-75% ethanol and diluting to a scale, shaking well, filtering to obtain the test solution; (2) preparation of a mixed standard solution: precise weighing of paeoniflorin, salvianolic acid B, hydroxysafflor yellow A, mulberroside A, tanshinone IIA, ferulic acid, rosmarinic acid, calycosin-7-glucoside and formononetin in an appropriate amounts to obtain a mixture, adding methanol to solve the mixture to obtain the mixed standard solution; (3) liquid chromatographic conditions: filling a chromatographic column with octadecylsilane bonded silica gel; using 0.2% formic acid (A solution)-acetonitrile (B solution) as the mobile phase; setting a gradient elution procedure containing steps of 0 to 2 min in 2% B solution, following 2 to 7 min in 2%˜14% B solution, 7 to 9 min in 14%˜15% B solution, 9 to 11 min in 15%˜16% B solution, 11 to 14 min in 16%˜35 35% B solution, 14 to 16 min in 35% B solution, 16 to 21 min in 35%-70% B solution, 21 to 23 min in 70% B solution, 23 to 28 min in 70%-100% B solution, 28 to 30 min in 100% B solution, volume flow 0.1˜0.4 ml/mi, column temperature 30-35° C., and detection wavelength 230-300 nm; (4) determination of chromatographic peaks: using the test solution and the standard solution obtained from steps (1) and (2) and the condition descripted in step (3), recording the chromatographic peak within 35 minutes.

2. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, characterized that the extraction solution concentration used in the described step (1) is 70% methanol.

3. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, wherein in the preparation of the mixed standard solution in the step (2), the concentration of the mulberroside A is 5.05-37.86 μg.Math.mL.sup.−1, the concentration of hydroxysafflor yellow A is 4.09-30.71 μg.Math.mL.sup.−1, the concentration of paeoniflorin is 50.67-380.0 μg.Math.mL.sup.−1, the concentration of ferulic acid is 1.93-14.46 μg.Math.mL.sup.−1, the concentration of calycosin-7-glucoside is 0.38-9.38 μgmL.sup.−1, the concentration of rosmarinic acid is 4.31-43.07 μg.Math.mL.sup.−1, the concentration of salvianolic acid B is 4.71-47.14 μg.Math.mL.sup.−1, the concentration of formononetin is 3.57-35.71 μg.Math.mL.sup.−1, and the concentration of tanshinone IIA is 1.19-8.93 μg.Math.mL.sup.−1.

4. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, characterized in that in the liquid chromatography conditions of the described step (3), the column is: ACQUITY UPLC® BEH.

5. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, characterized in that in the liquid chromatography conditions of the described step (3), the detection flow rate is 0.2 mL.Math.min.sup.−1, the detection wavelength is 254 nm, and the detection column temperature is 35° C.

6. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, characterized in that in the fingerprint spectrum generated by the detection method, the fingerprint spectrum of the test solution should show chromatographic peaks with the same retention time as the chromatographic peaks of the standard solution, and the similarity evaluation value of Chinese medicine between the fingerprint spectrum of the test solution and the standard solution should not be less than 0.90.

7. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, characterized in that the fingerprint spectrum generated by the detection method comprises 11 peaks including peak 1: mulberroside A, peak 2: hydroxysafflor yellow A, peak 4: paeoniflorin, peak 5: ferulic acid, peak 6: calycosin-7-glucoside, peak 7: rosmarinic acid, peak 8: salvianolic acid B, peak 10, formononetin, and peak 11: tanshinone IIA.

8. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, characterized in that pharmaceutical formulation containing 16 ingredients including astragalus, red peony root, salvia miltiorrhiza, Chinese angelica, rhizome of chuanxiong, peach kernel, safflower, frankincense, myrrh, spatholobus stem, achyranthes root, cinnamon twig, mulberry twig, pheretima, scorpion and leech.

9. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, characterized in that the composition and dosage ratio of the pharmaceutical preparation comprising 66 parts of astragalus, 27 parts of red peony root, 27 parts of Salvia miltiorrhiza, 27 parts of Chinese angelica, 27 parts of rhizome of chuanxiong, 27 parts of peach kernel, 13 parts of safflower, 13 parts of frankincense, 13 parts of myrrh, 20 parts of spatholobus stem, 27 parts of achyranthes root, 20 parts of cinnamon twig, 27 parts of mulberry twig, 27 parts of pheretima, 13 parts of scorpion and 27 parts of leech.

10. The fingerprint detection method according to claim 1, characterized in that the preparation method of the described pharmaceutical preparation comprising pheretima and scorpion are milled into fine powder, and the other 14 ingredients including astragalus, red peony root, Salvia miltiorrhiza, Chinese angelica, rhizome of chuanxiong, peach kernel, safflower, frankincense, myrrh, spatholobus stem, achyranthes root, cinnamon twig, mulberry twig and leech are crushed into fine powder, and mix the two fine powder and then sieve, encapsulate into capsules.

Description

DRAWING OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

[0049] The drawings illustrated herein are for the purpose of providing a further understanding of the invention and forming part of the invention. The illustrative embodiments of the invention and their descriptions are for the purpose of explaining the invention and do not constitute an undue limitation of the invention. The materials described herein are a pharmaceutical capsule of the present invention.

[0050] FIG. 1. Standard fingerprint pattern of the pharmaceutical formulation of the invention contains 11 peaks in the spectrum: peak 1: mulberroside A, peak 2: hydroxysafflor yellow A, peak 4: paeoniflorin, peak 5: ferulic acid, peak 6: calycosin-7-glucoside, peak 7: rosmarinic acid, peak 8: salvianolic acid B, peak 10; formononetin, peak 11: tanshinone IIA.

[0051] FIG. 2. UPLC control standard spectra of the pharmaceutical formulation of the present invention.

[0052] FIG. 3. UPLC spectra of Q-markers control (quality standards), the sample of the pharmaceutical formulation, a mixed sample and negative control samples.

EMBODIMENTS

[0053] In order to understand more fully the implementation of the present invention, the invention is further described below by typical embodiments. Unless otherwise defined, the technical terms or scientific terms used in the specification of the patent application and the claims of the present invention shall have the ordinary meaning as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art of the invention.

Example 1: A Fingerprint Detection Method for the Present Pharmaceutical Formulation

[0054] 1 Apparatus and Reagent

[0055] ACQUITY H-CLASS ultra-high performance liquid chromatography system (Waters Corporation, USA), including binary ultra-high pressure solvent system, FTN automatic sampling, PDA detector and Empower 3 chromatography workstation. Sartorius CPA225D 1-in-100,000 electronic balance (Sartorius Scientific Instruments Co., Ltd., Germany). KQ-300DE digital ultrasonic cleaner (Kunshan Ultrasonic Instruments Co., Ltd.).

[0056] Calycosin-7-glucoside (Lot No. 111920-201505, Purity: 97.1%) was purchased from the China Academy of Food and Drug Research (CAFRDR), mulberroside A (Lot No. MUST-17060301, Purity: 99.42%), hydroxysafflor yellow A (Lot No. MUST-16092910, Purity: 99.88% HPLC), amygdalin (Lot No. MUST-17042810, purity: 99.28% HPLC), paeoniflorin (lot: MUST-17031901, purity: 99.30%), rosmarinic acid (lot: MUST-17040532, purity: 99.40% HPLC), salvianolic acid B (lot: MUST-17040503, purity: 98.51%), calycosin (batch number: MUST-16120911, purity: 99.84% HPLC), tanshinone IIA (batch number: MUST-17022502, purity: 99.64% HPLC) and formononetin (batch number: MUST-17031005, purity: 99.03% HPLC) were purchased from Chengdu Manstead Biotechnology Co. Ltd. Ferulic acid (lot no.: wkq17022303, purity >98% HPLC) was purchased from Sichuan Vicky Biotechnology Co. Ltd. Acetonitrile (chromatographic purity, Honeywell, Korea), formic acid (chromatographic purity, Fluka), and other reagents were all analytical grade. Water used for the experiments was Watson's distilled water. The pharmaceutical formulation (0.4 g/capsule) was provided by Shaanxi Buchang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and the formulation was certified by Senior Engineer Liu Shijun of Shaanxi Chinese Medicine Resources Industrialization Collaboration and Innovation Center met the requirement of 2015 edition of the Chinese Pharmacopoeia.

[0057] 2 Methods and Results

[0058] 2.1 Chromatographic Conditions

[0059] An ACQUITY UPLC® BEH C18 (50 mm×2.1 mm, 1.7 μm) column was used. The mobile phase was 0.2% formic acid-water solution (A)-acetonitrile solution (B), and the gradient elution program was 0˜2 min, 2% B: 2˜7 min, 2%-14% B: 7˜9 min, 14%-15% B: 9˜11 min, 15%-16% B: 11˜14 min, 16%-35% B: 14˜16 min, 35% B: 16˜21 min, 35%-70% B: 21˜23 min, 70% B: 23˜28 min, 70%-100% B: 28˜30 min, 100% B: 30˜32 min, 100%-2% B: post-run 5 min. The flow rate was 0.2 ml/min, column temperature was 35° C.; detection wavelength was 254 nm; sample volume was 5 μl.

[0060] 2.2 Preparation of Standard Solution and Test Solution

[0061] 2.2.1 Preparation of the Mixed Standard Solution

[0062] Amygdalin, mulberroside A, hydroxysafflor yellow A, paeoniflorin, ferulic acid, calycosin-7-glucoside, calycosin, rosmarinic acid, salvianolic acid B, formononetin and tanshinone IIA were accurately weighed, added to methanol to dissolve, diluted to the line marked on the volumetric flask, shaken well, and filtered through a 0.22 μm filter membrane to obtain the mixed standard solution. (Each 1 mL containing 45.8 μg of amygdalin, 68.0 μg of mulberroside A, 83.0 μg of hydroxysafllor yellow A, 350.0 μg of paeoniflorin, 30.0 μg of ferulic acid, 5.0 μg of calycosin-7-glucoside, 6.79 μg of calycosin, 115 μg of rosmarinic acid, 405 μg of salvianolic acid B, 4 μg of formononetin and 36 μg of tanshinone IIA).

[0063] 2.2.2 Preparation of the Test Solution

[0064] The contents in 20 capsules of the pharmaceutical formulation of this invention was taken, weighed precisely, finely ground and then 2.0 g of the contents was weighed precisely, placed in a 150 mL flask with 50 mL of 70% methanol, extracted by ultrasonic treatment for 45 min (power 300 W, frequency 40 kHz), shaken well and filtered to obtain a filtrate. The pellet and the filter were washed by 30 mL of 70% ethanol in equal volume for three times to obtain a washing solution, and the washing solution was combined into the filtrate and concentrated by centrifugal evaporator (1465 rpm, concentration temperature 35° C.), and the pellet was dissolved by 70% ethanol and transferred to a 25 mL flask, added with 70% ethanol to the line marked on the flask, shaken well, filtered by 0.22 μm microporous filter membrane to obtain the test solution.

[0065] 2.3 Methodological Verification

[0066] 2.3.1 Systemic Suitability

[0067] The test solution and the mixed standard solution were sampled separately according to the liquid phase conditions under above section 2.1, and six-wavelength UPLC spectra were recorded (FIG. 2). The testing method of Naoxintong capsules was referenced by the Chinese Pharmacopoeia 2015 edition, and 21 peaks were identified with the reference peaks of amygdalin, mulberroside A, hydroxysafflor yellow A, paeoniflorin, ferulic acid, calycosin-7-glucoside, calycosin, rosmarinic acid, salvianolic acid B, formononetin and tanshinone IIA. The theoretical plate at 254 nm was determined to be not less than 20,000. A blank sample was fed with the same volume and run for 35 min, proving that there was no interference peak (see FIG. 2).

[0068] 2.3.2 Precision Test

[0069] The mixed standard solution as described in section 2.2.1 was taken carefully and measured 6 times continuously according to the chromatographic conditions of section 2.1, and the peak area was recorded. The results showed that the RSD of retention time of the 11 components were 0.03˜0.21% and the RSD of peak area were 0.77/˜1.57%, indicating that the method showed good precision (Table 4).

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 4 Instrument precision results Average Retention Average Peak area Compounds retention time time RSD % peak area RSD % mulberroside A 7.578 0.18 56225.37 1.42 hydroxysafflor 7.775 0.18 62735.21 1.28 yellow A amygdalin 8.129 0.18 36568.13 1.57 paeoniflorin 9.672 0.17 134092.5 1.51 ferulic acid 10.270 0.17 131481.1 1.21 calycosin-7- 10.947 0.21 120503.3 1.52 glucoside rosmarinic acid 14.123 0.06 159664.4 1.30 salvianolic 14.749 0.03 145783.8 1.26 acid B calycosin 15.311 0.03 732900.9 1.28 formononetin 17.391 0.04 408082.0 1.22 tanshinone IIA 23.542 0.04 62217.1 0.77

[0070] 2.3.3 Repeatability Test

[0071] Six test solutions, labeled 1 to 6, were prepared according to the test preparation method under section 2.2.2, and each test solution was precisely taken and sampled and determined according to the chromatographic conditions under section 2.1. The peak areas were recorded and the quality scores were calculated. The results showed that the RSD of retention time of the 11 components was 0.02˜0.30%, and the RSD of peak area was 0.89%˜1.63%, which indicated that the method showed good repeatability (Table 5).

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 5 Repeatability test results Average Retention Average Peak area Compounds retention time time RSD % peak area RSD % mulberroside A 7.56 0.29 174253.30 0.90 hydroxysafflor 7.75 0.30 231495.20 1.07 yellow A amygdalin 8.11 0.28 49222.19 1.48 paeoniflorin 9.64 0.24 205683.30 1.60 ferulic acid 10.25 0.24 128608.30 1.28 calycosin-7- 10.91 0.28 168400.50 1.49 glucoside rosmarinic acid 14.16 0.07 473330.00 0.90 salvianolic 14.73 0.05 2124189.00 1.63 acid B calycosin 15.30 0.04 119091.80 1.24 formononetin 17.38 0.06 38220.98 1.41 tanshinone IIA 23.53 0.02 237458.10 1.55

[0072] 2.3.4 Stability Test

[0073] An appropriate amount of the test solution as described in section 2.2.2 was placed at room temperature for 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 h. They were measured according to the chromatographic conditions under section 2.1 and the peak areas were recorded. The results showed that the RSD of retention time of the 11 components ranged from 0.05 to 0.82%, and the RSD of peak area ranged from 1.51% to 1.86%, indicating that the test solution was stable within 48 h at room temperature (Table 6).

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 6 Stability test results Average Retention Average Peak area Compounds retention time time RSD % peak area RSD % mulberroside A 7.71 0.82 55518.80 1.61 hydroxysafflor 7.92 0.85 62549.39 1.55 yellow A amygdalin 8.25 0.80 35715.85 1.86 paeoniflorin 9.77 0.62 133892.50 1.66 ferulic acid 10.47 0.73 127651.40 1.82 calycosin-7- 11.06 0.61 122442.80 1.51 glucoside rosmarinic acid 14.20 0.22 156851.40 1.74 salvianolic 14.79 0.13 145843.30 1.86 acid B calycosin 15.35 0.12 713737.00 1.61 formononetin 17.43 0.15 396847.50 1.68 tanshinone IIA 23.55 0.05 60705.73 1.69

[0074] 2.3.5 Systematic Fingerprint Quantification Method

[0075] Due to the complexity of Chinese medicine components, it is relatively one-sided to measure the quality of traditional Chinese medicine by the content of one or more components. Based on the macro-qualitative Sm and macro-quantitative Pm index of chromatographic fingerprints described by Prof. Guo-Xiang Sun, systematic fingerprint quantification method was used to conduct macro-analysis of fingerprint profiles of Chinese medicine and obtain the overall quantitative and qualitative analysis of Chinese medicine.

[0076] The macro-qualitative similarity are used to evaluate the number and distribution ratio of fingerprints in the spectrum, avoiding the “masking” effect of main component peaks on small peaks and the “desensitization” of main component shifts. The macro-qualitative similarity could reflect the similarity and content changes of the Chinese medicine and the control components at the same time. By evaluating the overall quality of medicine and intermediates, the accuracy and reliability of the systematic fingerprint analysis method were demonstrated.

[0077] The quality of 15 batches of the present formulation was analyzed based on the quantitative systematic fingerprinting method. The number of fingerprints and the distribution ratio of fingerprints in the fingerprint spectra were monitored by macro-qualitative similarity Sm (Formula 1), the number of peaks and peak heights in the fingerprint spectra were calculated quantitatively by macro-qualitative similarity Pm (Formula 2), and the variability of the peaks in the fingerprint spectra was calculated by the absolute value of the coefficient of variation of fingerprint homogenization a (Formula 3). The results of the three calculations were combined to determine the quality of the formulation and intermediates, and the accuracy and reliability of systematic fingerprinting were demonstrated.

[00001]$\begin{array}{cc}& \left(\mathrm{Formula}1\right)\end{array}$$S_m=\frac{1}{2}\left(S_F+S_F^{\prime }\right)=\frac{1}{2(\frac{{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{x}_i{y}_i}{\sqrt{{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{x}_i^2}\sqrt{{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{y}_i^2}}+\frac{{.Math.}_{i=1}^n\frac{x_i}{y_i}}{\sqrt{n{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{\left(\frac{x_i}{y_i}\right)}^2}}}$$\begin{array}{cc}{P}_m=\frac{1}{2}\left(C+P\right)=\left(\frac{{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{x}_i{y}_i}{{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{y}_i^2}+\frac{{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{x}_i}{{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{y}_i}{S}_F\right)\times 100\%& \left(\mathrm{Formula}2\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha =.Math.1.Math.\frac{{\gamma }_x}{{\gamma }_y}.Math.=.Math.1.Math.\frac{P}{C}.Math.& \left(\mathrm{Formula}3\right)\end{array}$

Note: SF is qualitative similarity, SF′ is ratio qualitative similarity, Sm is macro-qualitative similarity, P is quantitative similarity, C is projection content similarity, Pm is macro-quantitative similarity, xi (x1, x2, . . . xn) is sample fingerprint vector (peak area), yi (x1, x2, . . . xn) is the generated control fingerprint vector (peak area)
The quality of the formulation at each wavelength was identified by the systematic fingerprint quantification method by the three indicators of macro-quantitative similarity Sm, macro-quantitative similarity Pm and coefficient of variation α according to the Chinese medicine quality identification standard (8 levels) (Table 7).

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 7 Quality identification standards for Chinese medicines at eight levels Level Sm> Pm %> α< Results 1 0.95 95~105 0.05 Excellent 2 0.90 90~110 0.10 Very good 3 0.85 80~120 0.15 Good 4 0.80 75~125 0.20 Average 5 0.70 70~130 0.30 Fair 6 0.60 60~140 0.40 Acceptable 7 0.50 50~150 0.50 Poor 8 <0.50 0-∞ >0.50 Extreme poor

[0078] The classification results (see Table 7) showed that the quantity, distribution ratio and fingerprint ratio of the fifteen batches of the formulation tested at six wavelengths were similar. The results showed that the detection quality was poorer at 300 nm, indicating that identification under single wavelength was poor. Therefore, five wavelengths, 230, 254, 280, 324 nm and 400 nm were used for the quality evaluation.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 8 Results of the quantitative fingerprinting of the pharmaceutical formulation by six wavelengths 230 nm Sm Pm a Result 254 nm Sm Pm a Result 17030101 0.966 1.294 0.029 Very 17030101 0.984 1.425 0.006 Good good 17040101 0.941 1.531 0.042 Very 17040101 0.943 1.196 0.092 Very good good 17050101 0.976 1.315 0.038 Very 17050101 0.980 1.366 0.025 Very good good 17060101 0.963 1.358 0.028 Very 17060101 0.974 1.446 0.011 Very good good 1801145 0.947 1.176 0.054 Very 1801145 0.960 1.199 0.097 Very good good 1801146 0.973 1.261 0.035 Very 1801146 0.979 1.301 0.008 Very good good 1801147 0.968 1.283 0.008 Very 1801147 0.976 1.368 0.086 Very good good 1801207 0.947 1.269 0.002 Very 1801207 0.951 1.188 0.007 Excellent good 1801208 0.958 1.180 0.020 Excellent 1801208 0.956 1.302 0.070 Very good 1801215 0.969 1.143 0.008 Excellent 1801215 0.950 1.039 0.046 Excellent 1801216 0.965 1.069 0.021 Excellent 1801216 0.943 1.067 0.028 Excellent 1801217 0.969 1.104 0.020 Excellent 1801217 0.967 1.020 0.047 Excellent 1801218 0.974 1.069 0.023 Excellent 1801218 0.945 1.078 0.027 Excellent 1801219 0.971 1.121 0.008 Excellent 1801219 0.976 1.030 0.052 Excellent 280 nm Sm Pm a Result 300 nm Sm Pm a Result 17030101 0.977 1.381 0.016 Very 17030101 0.942 1.589 0.046 Good good 17040101 0.972 1.378 0.005 Very 17040101 0.986 1.442 0.014 Good good 17050101 0.982 1.364 0.017 Very 17050101 0.990 1.475 0.013 Good good 17060101 0.977 1.410 0.029 Very 17060101 0.986 1.469 0.035 Good good 1801145 0.968 1.357 0.008 Very 1801145 0.982 1.458 0.019 Good good 1801146 0.974 1.353 0.017 Very 1801146 0.970 1.441 0.046 Good good 1801147 0.969 1.294 0.035 Very 1801147 0.649 0.016 0.364 Acceptable good 1801207 0.938 1.274 0.018 Very 1801207 0.667 0.021 0.318 acceptable good 1801208 0.937 1.028 0.110 Very 1801208 0.959 1.209 0.005 Very good good 1801215 0.960 1.114 0.041 Excellent 1801215 0.663 0.019 0.311 Acceptable 1801216 0.941 0.943 0.053 Very 1801216 0.941 0.943 0.053 Very good good 1801217 0.943 1.009 0.042 Excellent 1801217 0.974 1.196 0.022 Excellent 1801218 0.935 0.945 0.062 Very 1801218 0.967 1.127 0.006 Excellent good 1801219 0.938 0.973 0.067 Excellent 1801219 0.963 1.159 0.010 Excellent 324 nm Sm Pm a Result 400 nm Sm Pm a Result 17030101 0.974 1.361 0.027 Very 17030101 0.975 1.533 0.028 Good good 17040101 0.974 1.346 0.043 Very 17040101 0.974 1.476 0.075 Good good 17050101 0.982 1.345 0.026 Very 17050101 0.976 1.521 0.031 Good good 17060101 0.981 1.369 0.028 Very 17060101 0.983 1.476 0.063 Good good 1801145 0.969 1.316 0.024 Very 1801145 0.973 1.480 0.081 Good good 1801146 0.969 1.266 0.062 Very 1801146 0.972 1.451 0.065 Good good 1801147 0.970 1.256 0.024 Very 1801147 0.947 1.009 0.106 Very good good 1801207 0.959 1.248 0.049 Very 1801207 0.964 1.069 0.142 Very good good 1801208 0.962 1.176 0.028 Excellent 1801208 0.867 0.611 0.057 Good 1801215 0.959 1.144 0.061 Excellent 1801215 0.970 1.169 0.130 Very good 1801216 0.960 1.086 0.055 Very 1801216 0.980 1.076 0.070 Very good good 1801217 0.949 1.247 0.168 Good 1801217 0.938 1.195 0.176 Very good 1801218 0.955 1.100 0.066 Very 1801218 0.725 1.106 0.113 Good good 1801219 0.958 1.125 0.056 Excellent 1801219 0.947 1.152 0.120 Very good

Example 2: Content Determination of the Pharmaceutical Formulation of this Invention

[0079] 2.1 Assay

[0080] 2.1.1 Chromatographic Conditions

[0081] An ACQUITY UPLC® BEH C18 (50 mm×2.1 mm, 1.7 μm) column was used with a mobile phase of 0.2% formic acid—aqueous solution (A)—acetonitrile solution (B) and a gradient elution procedure of 0˜2 min, 2% B: 2-7 min; 2%-14% B: 7˜9 min; 14%-15% B: 9˜11 min; 15%-16% B: 11˜14 min; 16%-35% B: 14˜16 min; 35% B: 16-21 min; 35%-70% B: 21˜23 min; 70% B: 23-28 min; 70%-100% B: 28-30 min; 100% B: 30-32 min; 100%-2% B: post-run 5 min. Flow rate 0.2 ml/min, column temperature 35° C., detection wavelength 254 nm, injection volume 5 μl.

[0082] 2.1.2 Preparation of the Mixed Standard Solution

[0083] Mulberroside A, hydroxysafflor yellow A, paeoniflorin, ferulic acid, calycosin-7-glucoside, rosmarinic acid, salvianolic acid B, formononetin and tanshinone IIA were accurately weighed, added to methanol to dissolve, diluted to the line marked on the volumetric flask, shaken well, and filtered through a 0.22 μm filter membrane to obtain the mixed standard solution. (Each 1 mL containing 68 μg of mulberroside A, 83 μg of hydroxysafflor yellow A, 350 μg of paeoniflorin, 30 μg of ferulic acid, 5 μg of calycosin, 115 μg of rosmarinic acid, 405 μg of salvianolic acid B, 4 μg of formononetin and 36 μg of tanshinone IIA).

[0084] 2.1.3 Preparation of the Test Solution

[0085] The contents in 20 capsules of the pharmaceutical formulation of this invention was taken, weighed precisely, finely ground and then 2.0 g of the contents was weighed precisely, placed in a 150 mL flask with 50 mL of 70% methanol, extracted by ultrasonic treatment for 45 min (power 300 W, frequency 40 kHz), shaken well and filtered to obtain a filtrate. The pellet and the filter were washed by 30 mL of 70% ethanol in equal volume for three times to obtain a washing solution, and the washing solution was combined into the filtrate and concentrated by centrifugal evaporator (1465 rpm, concentration temperature 35° C.), and the pellet was dissolved by 70% ethanol and transferred to a 25 mL flask, added with 70% ethanol to the line marked on the flask, shaken well, filtered by 0.22 μm microporous filter membrane to obtain the test solution.

[0086] 2.2 Methodological Validation

[0087] 2.2.1 Linearity, Detection Limit and Quantification Limit

[0088] The mixed standard solutions of the nine Q-markers were taken precisely and optimized analytical conditions according to section 2.1.1, wherein the peak area as Y-axis and the concentration of the standard solutions (X, μg/ml) as X-axis. The linearity of the nine standard compounds ranged from 0.38 to 380.00 μg/mL, and the linearity was good.

[0089] The limits of detection (LOD) were calculated according to S/N>3 and the limits of quantification (LOQ) were calculated according to S/N>10 by using a negative sample and adding different concentrations of the standard control solution. The LOD of the present method was 0.06-3.79 μg/mL, and the LOQ was 0.19˜5.05 μg/mL. The linear equations, correlation coefficients, limits of detection and limits of quantification of the nine Q-markers were shown in Table 9.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 9 Linear equations, linear range, r, LOD and LOQ of the nine Q-markers of Naoxintong capsules Retention linear ranges/ LOD/ LOQ/ Compounds time/min Linear equations/r (μg/mL) (μg/mL) (μg/mL) mulberroside A 7.609 y = 1543.2x − 4622.9, 5.05-37.86 3.79 5.05 r = 0.9996 hydroxysafflor 7.822 y = 2276.9x − 5151.2, 4.09-30.71 0.61 4.09 yellow A r = 0.9996 paeoniflorin 9.532 y = 381.92x − 8552.6, 50.67-380.00 1.90 7.60 r = 0.9996 ferulic acid 10.332 y = 8426.5x − 13935, 1.93-14.46 0.29 1.93 r = 0.9995 calycosin-7- 10.761 y = 4800.8x + 248.63, 0.38-9.38  0.06 0.19 glucoside r = 0.9996 rosmarinic acid 13.211 y = 4115.6x − 14667, 4.31-43.07 0.86 4.31 r = 0.9997 salvianolic 13.867 y = 3343.4x − 14380, 4.71-47.14 0.63 4.71 acid B r = 0.9997 formononetin 17.105 y = 12241x − 35194, 3.57-35.71 0.09 0.48 r = 0.9997 tanshinone IIA 23.739 y = 6730.6x − 4256.1, 1.19-8.93  0.18 1.19 r = 0.9998

[0090] 2.2.2 Specificity Test

[0091] According to the method under section 2.1.3, a negative sample solution of lacking astragalus, a negative sample solution of lacking Salvia miltiorrhiza, a negative sample solution of lacking red peony root, a negative sample solution of Safflower, a negative sample solution of lacking rhizome of chuanxiong and Chinese angelica, and a negative sample solution of lacking mulberry twig were prepared, respectively. The blank solution, the mixed standard solution, the test solution and the negative sample solutions were sucked precisely and measured according to the chromatographic conditions under section 2.1. Through analysis, the nine active ingredients did not interfere with each other, and the theoretical plate was met with the requirements. As shown in FIG. 2 in the specification, the absence of astragalus solution showed no chromatographic peaks of calycosin-7-glucoside and salvianolic acid B. The absence of Salvia miltiorrhiza solution showed no peaks of tanshinone IIA, salvianolic acid B and rosmarinic acid. The absence of red peony root solution showed no peaks of paeoniflorin at the corresponding positions. The absence of safflower negative solution showed no peaks of hydroxysafflor yellow A. The absence of rhizome of chuanxiong and Chinese angelica solution showed no peaks of ferulic acid. The absence of mulberry twig solution showed no peaks mulberroside A. Therefore, the specificity showed well.

[0092] 2.2.3 Precision Test

[0093] The mixed standard solution as described in section 2.2.1 was taken carefully and measured 6 times continuously according to the chromatographic conditions of section 2.1, and the peak area was recorded. The results showed that the RSD of retention time of the 9 components was 0.03˜0.21% and the RSD of peak area was 0.77%˜1.52%, indicating that the method showed good precision (Table 10).

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 10 Instrument precision results Average Retention Average Peak area Compounds retention time time RSD % peak area RSD % mulberroside A 7.58 0.18 56225.37 1.42 hydroxysafflor 7.78 0.18 62735.21 1.28 yellow A paeoniflorin 9.67 0.17 134092.50 1.51 ferulic acid 10.27 0.17 131481.10 1.21 calycosin-7- 10.95 0.21 120503.30 1.52 glucoside rosmarinic acid 14.12 0.06 159664.40 1.30 salvianolic 14.75 0.03 145783.80 1.26 acid B formononetin 17.39 0.04 408082.00 1.22 tanshinone IIA 23.54 0.04 62217.10 0.77

[0094] 2.2.4 Repeatability Test

[0095] Six test solutions, labeled 1 to 6, were prepared according to the test preparation method under section 2.1.3, and each test solution was precisely taken and sampled and determined according to the chromatographic conditions under section 2.1.1. The peak areas were recorded and the quality scores were calculated. The results showed that the RSD of retention time of the 9 components was 0.02˜0.30%, and the RSD of peak area was 0.90%˜1.63%, which indicated that the method showed good repeatability (Table 11).

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 11 Repeatability test results Average Retention Average Peak area Compounds retention time time RSD % peak area RSD % mulberroside A 7.56 0.29 174253.30 0.90 hydroxysafflor 7.75 0.30 231495.20 1.07 yellow A paeoniflorin 9.64 0.24 205683.30 1.60 ferulic acid 10.25 0.24 128608.30 1.28 calycosin-7- 10.91 0.28 168400.50 1.49 glucoside rosmarinic acid 14.16 0.07 473330.00 0.90 salvianolic 14.73 0.05 2124189.00 1.63 acid B formononetin 17.38 0.06 38220.98 1.41 tanshinone IIA 23.53 0.02 237458.10 1.55

[0096] 2.2.5 Stability Test

[0097] An appropriate amount of the test solution under section 2.1.3 was taken and placed it at room temperature for 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 h. They were measured according to the chromatographic conditions under section 2.1.1 and the peak areas were recorded. The results showed that the RSD of retention time of the 9 components ranged from 0.05 to 0.85%, and the RSD of peak area ranged from 1.51% to 1.86%, indicating that the test solution was stable within 48 h at room temperature (Table 12).

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 12 Stability test results Average Retention Average Peak area Compounds retention time time RSD % peak area RSD % mulberroside A 7.71 0.82 55518.80 1.61 hydroxysafflor 7.92 0.85 62549.39 1.55 yellow A paeoniflorin 9.77 0.62 133892.50 1.66 ferulic acid 10.47 0.73 127651.40 1.82 calycosin-7- 11.06 0.61 122442.80 1.51 glucoside rosmarinic acid 14.20 0.22 156851.40 1.74 salvianolic 14.79 0.13 145843.30 1.86 acid B formononetin 17.43 0.15 396847.50 1.68 tanshinone 11A 23.55 0.05 60705.73 1.69

[0098] 2.2.6 Recovery Test

[0099] One ml of the concentrated extracts of the determined index under section 2.1.3 was taken, a total of 6 parts were taken into a 10 mL flask respectively, and each part contained 1 ml mixed control solution which a certain amount of mulberroside A, hydroxysafflor yellow A, paeoniflorin, ferulic acid, calycosin-7-glucoside, rosmarinic acid, salvianolic acid B, formononetin and tannin IIA was added. They were measured according to the conditions under section 2.1.1, and the peak areas were recorded and the sample recoveries were calculated. The results were shown in Table 13, which indicates that the recoveries of individual compounds were not satisfactory and the method needed to be improved.

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 13 Sampling recovery test results (%, n = 5) 80% 100% 120% recovery RSD recovery RSD recovery RSD Compounds % % % % % % mulberroside A 109.50 2.57 107.27 0.56 105.10 0.79 hydroxysafflor yellow A 112.35 0.93 108.55 0.81 108.39 0.94 paeoniflorin 113.37 1.98 113.38 0.26 134.93 0.94 ferulic acid 118.23 0.74 116.77 3.24 114.11 2.39 calycosin-7-glucoside 128.17 1.94 124.07 2.07 124.16 1.22 rosmarinic acid 115.43 2.76 112.00 0.48 110.16 1.16 salvianolic acid B 103.44 0.87 100.89 0.71 99.16 0.79 formononetin 109.68 1.08 105.67 0.53 109.57 1.69 tanshinone IIA 84.17 2.47 100.51 1.29 79.87 0.86

[0100] 2.2.7 Sample Concentration

[0101] 15 batches of pharmaceutical formulation samples of the present invention were taken, 3 test solutions were prepared for each batch according to section 2.1.3. Two μl of the standard control solution and 2˜5 μl of the test solution were taken precisely, injected into the liquid chromatograph, measured, the peak areas were recorded, and the concentration of each component in each batch was calculated, see Table 14.

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 14 Average results of sample determination (mg/g, n = 3) mulberroside hydroxysafflor ferulic calycosin- rosmarinic salvianolic tanshinone Lot A yellow A paeoniflorin acid 7-glucoside acid acid B formononetin IIA 17030101 0.354 0.255 2.528 0.052 0.040 0.045 2.340 0.003 1.029 17040101 0.308 0.251 2.561 0.064 0.030 0.037 2.135 0.001 0.545 17050101 0.443 0.245 2.408 0.060 0.027 0.029 2.189 0.003 0.693 17060101 0.378 0.205 2.205 0.064 0.041 0.041 2.351 0.002 0.904 1801145 0.254 0.127 1.904 0.039 0.022 0.020 1.190 0.004 0.790 1801146 0.386 0.190 2.761 0.065 0.035 0.034 1.878 0.005 0.801 1801147 0.325 0.166 2.350 0.052 0.029 0.030 1.596 0.004 0.675 1801207 0.423 0.220 3.426 0.064 0.038 0.039 2.056 0.009 0.679 1801208 0.417 0.207 3.245 0.064 0.039 0.038 2.034 0.008 0.927 1801215 0.345 0.185 2.628 0.055 0.028 0.031 1.676 0.008 0.790 1801216 0.312 0.163 2.382 0.046 0.026 0.027 1.339 0.008 0.753 1801217 0.341 0.183 2.591 0.054 0.028 0.029 1.650 0.008 0.794 1801218 0.344 0.192 2.770 0.059 0.033 0.031 1.635 0.009 0.854 1801219 0.291 0.158 2.241 0.041 0.025 0.026 1.454 0.008 1.085 1801220 0.340 0.184 2.438 0.057 0.032 0.037 1.759 0.007 0.659

[0102] In summary, the concentration of each capsule in the pharmaceutical formulation of this invention contained paeoniflorin (C.sub.23H.sub.28O.sub.11), salvianolic acid B (C.sub.36H.sub.30O.sub.6), hydroxysafflor yellow A (C.sub.27H.sub.32O.sub.16), mulberroside A (C.sub.26H.sub.32O.sub.14), tanshinone IIA (C.sub.9H.sub.18O.sub.3), ferulic acid (C.sub.10H.sub.10O.sub.4), rosmarinic acid (C.sub.18H.sub.16O.sub.8), calycosin-7-glucoside (C.sub.22H.sub.22O.sub.10) and formononetin (C.sub.16H.sub.12O.sub.4), and the concentration of paeoniflorin was not less than 0.6 mg/capsule, salvianolic acid B was not less than 0.9 mg/capsule, hydroxysafflor yellow A was not less than 0.14 mg/capsule, mulberroside A was not less than 7 μg/capsule, tanshinone IIA was not less than 0.045 mg/capsule, ferulic acid was not less than 0.041 mg/capsule, rosmarinic acid was not less than 0.7 mg/capsule, calycosin-7-glucoside was not less than 0.014 mg/capsule, and formononetin was not less than 0.5 mg/capsule.

[0103] Finally, it should be noted that the present invention is not limited to the above specific embodiments, which are merely schematic and instructive, and not limiting. Any changes, equivalent substitutions and improvements made by a person of ordinary skill in the art under the inspiration of this specification, but within the spirit and substance of the present invention, are within the scope of protection of the present invention.