Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Interpretation of urinary concentrations of pseudoephedrine and its metabolite cathine in relation to doping control

Koen Deventer UGent, Peter Van Eenoo UGent, Guy Baele UGent, Oscar Juan Pozo Mendoza UGent, Wim Van Thuyne UGent and Frans Delbeke UGent (2009) DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS. 1(5-6). p.209-213
abstract
Until the end of 2003 a urinary concentration of pseudoephedrine exceeding 25 mu g/mL was regarded as a doping violation by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Since its removal from the prohibited list in 2004 the number of urine samples in which pseudoephedrine was detected in our laboratory increased substantially. Analysis of 116 in-competition samples containing pseudoephedrine in 2007 and 2008, revealed that 66% of these samples had a concentration of pseudoephedrine above 25 mu g/mL. This corresponded to 1.4% of all tested in competition samples in that period. In the period 2001-2003 only 0.18% of all analysed in competition samples contained more than 25 mu g/mL. Statistical comparison of the two periods showed that after the removal of pseudoephedrine from the list its use increased significantly. Of the individual sports compared between the two periods, only cycling is shown to yield a significant increase. Analysis of excretion urine samples after administration of a therapeutic daily dose (240 mg pseudoephedrine) in one administration showed that the threshold of 25 mu g/mL can be exceeded. The same samples were also analysed for cathine, which has currently a threshold of 5 mu g/mL on the prohibited list. The maximum urinary concentration of cathine also exceeded the threshold for some volunteers. Comparison of the measured cathine and pseudoephedrine concentrations only indicated a poor correlation between them. Hence, cathine is not a good indicator to control pseudopehedrine intake. To control the (ab)use of ephedrines in sports it is recommended that WADA reintroduce a threshold for pseudoephedrine. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
EXERCISE, SPORTS, PERFORMANCE, EPHEDRINES, CAFFEINE, EXCRETION, ENDURANCE, CHROMATOGRAPHY
journal title
DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS
Drug Test. Anal.
volume
1
issue
5-6
pages
5 pages
publisher
JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
place of publication
CHICHESTER
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000275020500001
ISSN
1942-7603
DOI
10.1002/dta.31
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
id
910899
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-910899
date created
2010-03-23 11:49:14
date last changed
2010-03-31 15:39:10
@article{910899,
  abstract     = {Until the end of 2003 a urinary concentration of pseudoephedrine exceeding 25 mu g/mL was regarded as a doping violation by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Since its removal from the prohibited list in 2004 the number of urine samples in which pseudoephedrine was detected in our laboratory increased substantially. Analysis of 116 in-competition samples containing pseudoephedrine in 2007 and 2008, revealed that 66\% of these samples had a concentration of pseudoephedrine above 25 mu g/mL. This corresponded to 1.4\% of all tested in competition samples in that period. In the period 2001-2003 only 0.18\% of all analysed in competition samples contained more than 25 mu g/mL. Statistical comparison of the two periods showed that after the removal of pseudoephedrine from the list its use increased significantly. Of the individual sports compared between the two periods, only cycling is shown to yield a significant increase.

Analysis of excretion urine samples after administration of a therapeutic daily dose (240 mg pseudoephedrine) in one administration showed that the threshold of 25 mu g/mL can be exceeded. The same samples were also analysed for cathine, which has currently a threshold of 5 mu g/mL on the prohibited list. The maximum urinary concentration of cathine also exceeded the threshold for some volunteers. Comparison of the measured cathine and pseudoephedrine concentrations only indicated a poor correlation between them. Hence, cathine is not a good indicator to control pseudopehedrine intake. To control the (ab)use of ephedrines in sports it is recommended that WADA reintroduce a threshold for pseudoephedrine. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley \& Sons, Ltd.},
  author       = {Deventer, Koen and Van Eenoo, Peter and Baele, Guy and Pozo Mendoza, Oscar Juan and Van Thuyne, Wim and Delbeke, Frans},
  issn         = {1942-7603},
  journal      = {DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS},
  keyword      = {EXERCISE,SPORTS,PERFORMANCE,EPHEDRINES,CAFFEINE,EXCRETION,ENDURANCE,CHROMATOGRAPHY},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5-6},
  pages        = {209--213},
  publisher    = {JOHN WILEY \& SONS LTD},
  title        = {Interpretation of urinary concentrations of pseudoephedrine and its metabolite cathine in relation to doping control},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dta.31},
  volume       = {1},
  year         = {2009},
}

Chicago
Deventer, Koen, Peter Van Eenoo, Guy Baele, Oscar Juan Pozo Mendoza, Wim Van Thuyne, and Frans Delbeke. 2009. “Interpretation of Urinary Concentrations of Pseudoephedrine and Its Metabolite Cathine in Relation to Doping Control.” Drug Testing and Analysis 1 (5-6): 209–213.
APA
Deventer, K., Van Eenoo, P., Baele, G., Pozo Mendoza, O. J., Van Thuyne, W., & Delbeke, F. (2009). Interpretation of urinary concentrations of pseudoephedrine and its metabolite cathine in relation to doping control. DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS, 1(5-6), 209–213.
Vancouver
1.
Deventer K, Van Eenoo P, Baele G, Pozo Mendoza OJ, Van Thuyne W, Delbeke F. Interpretation of urinary concentrations of pseudoephedrine and its metabolite cathine in relation to doping control. DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS. CHICHESTER: JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD; 2009;1(5-6):209–13.
MLA
Deventer, Koen, Peter Van Eenoo, Guy Baele, et al. “Interpretation of Urinary Concentrations of Pseudoephedrine and Its Metabolite Cathine in Relation to Doping Control.” DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS 1.5-6 (2009): 209–213. Print.