{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030145530145530147, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010395010395010396, 'mean_word_length': 5.829787234042553, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
COMPARISON OF A HIGH PRESSURE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS AND AN ENZYME IMMUNOASSAY TECHNIQUE FOR QUANTITATION OF DISOPYRAMIDE IN SERUM OR PLASMA

High pressure liquid chromatographic (HPLC) and enzyme immunoassay (Emit®) methods for measuring disopyramide concentrations in plasma and serum were compared. The precision of both methods was satisfactory, with all coefficients of variation in the range 1 · 3–6 · 5%. Quantitation was comparable, with a correlation coefficient of 0·991 (n=96). There was no interference in either method from lignocaine, digoxin, propranolol, procainamide or N‐monodealkylated disopyramide. HPLC was superior in terms of lower cost, the ability to quantitate metabolite concentrations, lack of interference by lipaemia or haemolysis and slightly better within‐run precision. However, Emit was considered the method of choice for routine therapeutic drug monitoring because of its relative simplicity and speed of performance.