mRNA för att avslöja mikrodosering av eytropoietin

The monitoring of endogenous steroids in urine has been an important component of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) for the last decade. Recently, the quantitation of endogenous steroids in blood has been incorporated into the ABP to increase sensitivity in circumstances where the excretion of urinary ABP biomarkers is low. Current ABP guidelines mandate the use of venous blood draws for blood steroid sample collections, however, recent efforts have focused on investigating the use of less invasive sample collection methods, such as capillary blood collected from the upper arm. The focus of this study was to compare the analytical results of venous and capillary blood collected weekly from 20 individuals, 10 males and 10 females, over six weeks. The two primary biomarkers of the blood steroid ABP module, testosterone (T) and the testosterone/androstenedione (T/A4) ratio, were compared, as well as luteinizing hormone (LH) and the T/LH ratio in male participants, two biomarkers known to be responsive to T use. All biomarkers showed excellent agreement between venous and capillary blood. Longitudinal stability between sample types within individuals was also comparable for all biomarkers. Finally, storage of simultaneously collected capillary samples at room temperature and frozen conditions was compared with evaluate the potential impact of non-cold chain shipping conditions. Most biomarkers showed excellent agreement between frozen and room temperature storage conditions. These results indicate capillary blood collections represent a promising alternative to venous blood collections for the blood steroid module of the ABP.

Is blood blood? Comparing quantitation of endogenous steroids and luteinizing hormone in concurrently collected venous serum and Tasso+ SST capillary serum samples.

Goodrum JM, Peek K, Moore C, Eichner D, Miller GD.Drug Test Anal. 2024 May 24. doi: 10.1002/dta.3738. Online ahead of print.

The prevalence of doping in competitive sport, and the methods for assessing prevalence, remain poorly understood. This reduces the ability of researchers, governments, and sporting organizations to determine the extent of doping behavior and the impacts of anti-doping strategies.

Objectives: The primary aim of this subject-wide systematic review was to collate and synthesize evidence on doping prevalence from published scientific papers. Secondary aims involved reviewing the reporting accuracy and data quality as evidence for doping behavior to (1) develop quality and bias assessment criteria to facilitate future systematic reviews; and (2) establish recommendations for reporting future research on doping behavior in competitive sports to facilitate better meta-analyses of doping behavior.

Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify relevant studies. Articles were included if they contained information on doping prevalence of any kind in competitive sport, regardless of the methodology and without time limit. Through an iterative process, we simultaneously developed a set of assessment criteria; and used these to assess the studies for data quality on doping prevalence, potential bias and reporting.

Results: One-hundred and five studies, published between 1975 and 2019,were included. Doping prevalence rates in competitive sport ranged from 0 to 73% for doping behavior with most falling under 5%. To determine prevalence, 89 studies used self-reported survey data (SRP) and 17 used sample analysis data (SAP) to produce evidence for doping prevalence (one study used both SRP and SAP). In total, studies reporting athletes totaled 102,515 participants, (72.8% men and 27.2% women). Studies surveyed athletes in 35 countries with 26 involving athletes in the United States, while 12 studies examined an international population. Studies also surveyed athletes from most international sport federations and major professional sports and examined international, national, and sub-elite level athletes, including youth, masters, amateur, club, and university level athletes. However, inconsistencies in data reporting prevented meta-analysis for sport, gender, region, or competition level. Qualitative syntheses were possible and provided for study type, gender, and geographical region. The quality assessment of prevalence evidence in the studies identified 20 as “High”, 60 as “Moderate”, and 25 as “Low.” Of the 89 studies using SRP, 17 rated as “High”, 52 rated as “Moderate”, and 20 rated as “Low.” Of the 17 studies using SAP, 3 rated as “High”, 9 rated as “Moderate”, and 5 rated as “Low.” Examining ratings by year suggests that both the quality and quantity of the evidence for doping prevalence in published studies are increasing.

Conclusions: Current knowledge about doping prevalence in competitive sport relies upon weak and disparate evidence. To address this, we offer a comprehensive set of assessment criteria for studies examining doping behavior data as evidence for doping prevalence. To facilitate future evidence syntheses and meta-analyses, we also put forward “best practice” recommendations and reporting guidelines that will improve evidence quality.

Gleaves J, Petróczi A, Folkerts D, de Hon O, Macedo E, Saugy M, et al. Doping prevalence in competitive sport: evidence synthesis with best practice recommendations and reporting guidelines from the WADA working group on doping prevalence. Sports Med. 2021;51:1909–34.

Mountain biker Mathias Fluckiger cleared of all doping charges

By Gustavo Muñana

Sunday, 26 May 2024

Mountain biker Mathias Fluckiger is cleared of all doping charges by the Swiss Sports Disciplinary Tribunal. The doping sample and the analysis results cannot be used, with proceedings suspended.

During the hearing before the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Sport, Mathias Fluckiger’s sample and the analysis result were declared unusable. For Swiss Sport Integrity, this decision is incomprehensible and wrong. Finally, Swiss Sports Integrity (SSI), the Swiss anti-doping authority (and not the Swiss sports disciplinary body, which made the decision), reported the acquittal.

During the hearing before the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Sport (DC), only the preliminary question of the usability of the urine sample of 5 June 2022 and the corresponding analysis result was decided. According to the decision of the CAS, Fluckiger is cleared of all allegations of anti-doping rule violations due to the presence of zeranol in his urine sample of 5 June 2022. At the moment, only the decision is available and the written reasons for the decision will be provided later. The considerations that led to this decision are not yet known.

Swiss Sport Integrity does not understand this decision and considers the legal and scientific arguments presented by the opposing party during the hearing to be incorrect. Furthermore, Swiss Sport Integrity notes that the time allowed for the preparation of the hearing was extremely short and that the right to be heard was thus violated.

Swiss Sport Integrity is awaiting the written reasons for the decision and will decide after a thorough analysis whether to appeal the decision of the DC to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Disciplinary Committee’s decision also means that Fluckiger should never have been suspended and the test results should never have been made public. The 2021 overall World Cup winner and 2020 Olympic silver medallist, and Nino Schurter’s great rival, was provisionally suspended in error.

Fluckiger told the media through his spokesman that he was “very happy, but above all relieved”. He now wants to concentrate on the World Cup race in Nove Mesto, his last chance to reach the Summer Games in Paris, but Flückiger’s position has been clear since the autumn of 2022.

On 21 December 2022, the Swiss Sports Disciplinary Tribunal has lifted the suspension of Tokyo 2020 silver medallist Fluckiger after deciding to no longer consider one of his anti-doping tests as positive. On 18 August, the 33-year-old was informed that one of his samples taken on 5 June at the Swiss Cross Country Championships had tested positive for Zeranol.

Zeranol is an anabolic which promotes muscle growth and is approved for use in livestock in some countries. There was a minute amount found in the sample and as a result the 2021 Mountain Bike World Cup winner submitted an explanation to the Disciplinary Chamber saying that it should be considered atypical and not positive. The body subsequently decided to no longer consider the result as a positive sample so the suspension was lifted.

Fluckiger claimed that the amount detected in his sample was 0.3 nanograms per millilitre, a figure that is below the 5ng/mL threshold the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) requires for it to be regarded as an adverse analytical finding. WADA guidance is that a concentration of zeranol or its metabolites at less than 5ng/mL being found in a sample should be treated as an atypical finding, triggering a mandatory investigation.