Discrimination of prohibited oral use of salbutamol from authorized inhaled asthma treatment

Citation
R. Berges et al., Discrimination of prohibited oral use of salbutamol from authorized inhaled asthma treatment, CLIN CHEM, 46(9), 2000, pp. 1365-1375
Citations number
35
Categorie Soggetti
Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
Journal title
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
ISSN journal
00099147 → ACNP
Volume
46
Issue
9
Year of publication
2000
Pages
1365 - 1375
Database
ISI
SICI code
0009-9147(200009)46:9<1365:DOPOUO>2.0.ZU;2-A
Abstract
Background: The administration of salbutamol is permitted only by inhalatio n by the international Olympic Committee (IOC) for the management of asthma and exercise-induced asthma in athletes. The establishment of criteria to distinguish between the IOC authorized use (inhaled) and the IOC prohibited use (oral) of salbutamol appeared possible using simultaneous evaluation o f variables based on the concentration of nonconjugated enantiomers of salb utamol excreted in urine. Methods: Urine was collected from asthmatic and nonasthmatic swimmers who h ad received various preexercise doses of oral (five doses of 4 mg) or inhal ed (two doses of 100 mu g) salbutamol. Urine was also obtained from subject s who had received the maximum dosage of inhaled salbutamol advisable for c ompeting athletes to provide protection from exercise-induced asthma and tr eatment of asthma (1600 mu g in 24 h, 800 mu g being in the last 4 h), All samples were analyzed to determine the total amount of unchanged salbutamol excreted in urine and the ratio between the S and R enantiomers. Results: The discriminant function D = -3.776 + 1.46 x 10(-3) {[S(+)] + [R( -)]} + 1.012 {[S(+)]/[R(-)]} can be used to classify data into two groups, inhaled and oral. The confirmatory criterion suggested (cutoff at D = 1.06, 4 SD from the mean D value of the inhaled distribution) has been verified in different sets of samples showing suspicious concentrations by conventio nal screening procedures in doping control. An 11.8% false-negative (oral c lassified as inhaled) rate is assumed with the confirmatory criterion propo sed, but virtually no false positives (inhaled classified as oral) are obta ined (<1 in 33 000). Conclusions: The overall procedure recommended is to screen all samples and to apply the confirmation criterion proposed to samples showing free racem ic salbutamol concentrations >500 9 mu g/L by gas chromatography-mass spect rometry or free + conjugated racemic salbutamol concentrations >1400 mu g/L by ELISA. (C) 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.