Annual banned‐substance review: analytical approaches in human sports drug testing

Abstract

Within the mosaic display of international anti-doping efforts, analytical strategies based on up-to-date instrumentation as well as most recent information about physiology, pharmacology, metabolism, etc., of prohibited substances and methods of doping are indispensable. The continuous emergence of new chemical entities and the identification of arguably beneficial effects of established or even obsolete drugs on endurance, strength, and regeneration, necessitate frequent and adequate adaptations of sports drug testing procedures. These largely rely on exploiting new technologies, extending the substance coverage of existing test protocols, and generating new insights into metabolism, distribution, and elimination of compounds prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). In reference of the content of the 2014 Prohibited List, literature concerning human sports drug testing that was published between October 2013 and September 2014 is summarized and reviewed in this annual banned-substance review, with particular emphasis on analytical approaches and their contribution to enhanced doping controls.

Advantages and Limitations of Androgen Receptor-Based Methods for Detecting Anabolic Androgenic Steroid Abuse as Performance Enhancing Drugs

“…Most methods of androgen monitoring rely on detecting, by MS, the chemical signature of T and known AAS within the urine of the athlete [ 14 – 17 ]. Since chemical assessment relies on a prior knowledge of the AASs, novel methods are currently under consideration that detect AAS activity in an athlete’s bodily fluids, even if the AAS is unknown [ 5 , 18 – 20 ].…”

Biocompatible Solid-Phase Microextraction Nanoelectrospray Ionization: An Unexploited Tool in Bioanalysis

“…As can be seen in Figure and Table S5, an extraction time of 1 min from 700 μL of urine was sufficient to achieve LOQs ranging between 100 and 500 pg mL –1 . Not only were LOQ values below MRPL levels (i.e., 50–100 ng mL –1 ), , but also rewarding correlation coefficients (>0.999) were observed for all probes in the range evaluated (i.e., 100 pg mL –1 up to 500 ng mL –1 ; see Figures and S4). Since SPME derives its sensitivity and selectivity from the physicochemical/geometrical characteristics of the coating used, current research is directed toward the development of thinner coatings with greater affinity for the target analytes (e.g., HLB), with aims to provide lower limits of detection without compromising total analysis time .…”

“…Due to its noninvasive sample collection nature and the typically large sample volumes available, urine is the most traditional matrix employed when monitoring abuse of illicit drugs or doping in sports . Since the amount of parent drug excreted in urine is typically low (e.g., parent drug could be metabolized by the liver), analytical methods capable of providing sensitive analysis in the subnanogram per milliliter levels are needed. , Recently, Boyacı et al and Reyes-Garcés et al , demonstrated that different geometrical formats of SPME were capable of meeting the minimum required performance levels (MRPL) set by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for the analysis of prohibited substances in urine.…”

“…Analysis of Controlled Substances in Urine Samples. Due to its noninvasive sample collection nature and the typically large sample volumes available, urine is the most traditional matrix employed when monitoring abuse of illicit drugs 55 or doping in sports. 56 Since the amount of parent drug excreted in urine is typically low (e.g., parent drug could be metabolized by the liver), analytical methods capable of providing sensitive analysis in the subnanogram per milliliter levels are needed.…”

Dietary supplements quality analysis tools from the United States Pharmacopeia

“…Sports performance enhancement: Professional and amateur athletes are targeted with designer anabolic steroids and stimulants, many of which are banned by the World Anti‐Doping Agency (WADA) 19. Functional and structural diversity, synthetic proclivity of the adulterators, and the generally small amounts of the infringing substances required to elicit a therapeutic effect make this category especially challenging to address.…”