Urinary phenylethylamine metabolites as potential markers for sports drug testing purposes

The misuse of 2‐phenylethylamine (PEA) in sporting competitions is prohibited by the World Anti‐Doping Agency. As it is endogenously produced, a method is required to differentiate between naturally elevated levels of PEA and the illicit administration of the drug. In 2015, a sulfo‐conjugated metabo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biomedical chromatography 2022-02, Vol.36 (2), p.e5274-n/a
Main Authors: Krombholz, Sophia, Thomas, Andreas, Piper, Thomas, Lagojda, Andreas, Kühne, Dirk, Thevis, Mario
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Biomarkers - urine
Chromatography, Liquid
doping
Doping in Sports
Female
Humans
Limit of Detection
Linear Models
Male
mass spectrometry
Middle Aged
Phenethylamines - pharmacokinetics
Phenethylamines - urine
Reproducibility of Results
sport
stimulants
Substance Abuse Detection - methods
Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The misuse of 2‐phenylethylamine (PEA) in sporting competitions is prohibited by the World Anti‐Doping Agency. As it is endogenously produced, a method is required to differentiate between naturally elevated levels of PEA and the illicit administration of the drug. In 2015, a sulfo‐conjugated metabolite [2‐(2‐hydroxyphenyl)acetamide sulfate (M1)] was identified, and pilot study data suggested that the ratio M1/PEA could be used as a marker indicating the oral application of PEA. Within this project, the required reference material of M1 was synthesized, single and multiple dose elimination studies were conducted and 369 native urine samples of athletes were analyzed as a reference population. While the oral administration of only 100 mg PEA did not affect urinary PEA concentrations, an increase in urinary concentrations of M1 was observed for all volunteers. However, urinary concentrations of both PEA and M1 showed relatively large inter‐individual differences and establishing a cut‐off‐level for M1/PEA proved difficult. Consequently, a second metabolite, phenylacetylglutamine, was considered. Binary logistic regression demonstrated a significant (P 
ISSN:0269-3879
1099-0801
DOI:10.1002/bmc.5274