Newswise — Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) is a genetically engineered hormone sometimes misused by high-performance athletes such as cyclists and marathon runners to boost their endurance. The potential misuse of the drug is detected in urine collected from athletes. Since the test was introduced in 2000, 33 labs around the world have been accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to administer the procedure. During the last hardly any years, the testing act has been criticized by some. Accordingly, a team of researchers investigated the quality of the test results at two WADA labs. They found that the discovery power of the test at the two labs was poor.

The Study
The study is entitled, ?Testing for Recombinant Human Erythropoietin in Urine: Problems Associated by Current Anti-Doping Testing,? and was conducted by Carsten Lundby, Niels J. Achman-Andersen, Jonas J. Thomsen, Anne M. Norgaard and Paul Robach, all of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark. The findings appear in the online edition of the Journal of Applied Physiology, published by the American Physiological Society (http://www.the-aps.org).

The researchers conducted the study using eight male volunteers (non-athletes). Following baseline measurements, the volunteers were injected every second day for 14 days with 5,000 IU rHuEpo (the ?boosting period?). For the next two weeks, the volunteers received one injection each seven days (the ?maintenance? period). Blood samples were drawn before the injections and on eight extra occasions. Urine samples were collected before the blood draws and in continuance six additional days. Exercise tests using a bicycle ergometer were conducted prior to injection and forward three other occasions.

Findings and Implications
The rHuEpo administration regimen was effective in increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of all the volunteer subjects, and at the same time, their performance increased. Additionally:

? Using the samples collected towards the time of the boosting phase, Lab A concluded that the whole of the samples were positive for rHuEpo. Lab B determined that none of the samples, despite being identical to Lab A?s samples, were positive.

? For samples collected during the maintenance period, Lab A determined that six of l6 samples were positive and brace samples were suspicious. By contrast, Lab B found no positive samples.

? For samples collected during the post-treatment phase, Lab A concluded that pair of 24 samples were stubborn and three were suspicious. Lab B determined that quite 24 samples were negative.

The implication? if applied to athletes ? is that there is only a small ?risk? of being tested positive for rHuEpo doping while athletic acting is greatly enhanced. If the samples are analyzed by Lab B, the risk of doping discovery is non-existent. It should be noted that in this study, the ?maintenance? period was only brace weeks ? but according to the authors, this can subsist sustained for an entire sporting season.

Results in Perspective
The results demonstrate that the detection authoritativeness of the WADA test is poor and that agreement in analytical results from two WADA-accredited laboratories is very poor. Given these and other tools and materials, the researchers deduce that improvements in the current rHuEpo test are necessary, or that alternative tests should be developed. This however, seems unlikely to occur before major events scheduled for 2008 like the Tour de France or the Olympic Games in Beijing.

Accompanying Editorial
As the topic of drug testing athletes is especially timely and carries implications for anti-doping efforts and public policy, the Journal invited and published an editorial that accompanies the study. Joris R. Delanghe of Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium and Michael J. Joyner of the Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, wrote that the physiological background for testing Epo in animal-water is complex and the handling of Epo by the renal tubules is poorly understood. The high number of false negative results found in the study implies a risk that athletes who use rHuEpo will avoid detection and damage the fundamental goal of fair competition.

The editorial authors suggest that under which circumstances the existing discriminative characteristic be possible to likely have existence improved by emphasizing pre-analytical care of piss specimens, there may be limitations to piss testing of peptide hormones that will be difficult to ever overcome. Additionally, there is also a concern that treated urine specimens could mask rHuEpo traduce. As a result, the authors suggest that blood-based indirect rHuEpo tests may offer greater advantages for detecting the drug, and this approach would moreover have existence useful for detecting other kinds of blood doping.

Source: Online Edition of the Journal of Applied Physiology

Key war of words: Physiology; rHuEpo Testing; Epo athletics; Journal of Applied Physiology

??? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ??????

Мой блог находят по следующим фразам