4.4 Article

Evaluation of epiandrosterone as a long-term marker of testosterone use

Journal

DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS
Volume 12, Issue 11-12, Pages 1554-1560

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dta.2903

Keywords

epiandrosterone; IRMS; testosterone

Funding

  1. Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Identification and evaluation of long-term markers is crucial in prolonging the detection window for anabolic steroid abuse in sport. Recently, sulfoconjugated epiandrosterone was identified as a potential long-term marker for the abuse of certain endogenous anabolic agents, including testosterone, which continues to be widely used as a performance enhancing agent in sport. To evaluate the applicability of epiandrosterone sulfate as a marker for testosterone use, administration studies were conducted with multiple modes of testosterone administration - transdermal, intramuscular, and subcutaneous. A modified sample preparation method was used to collect both glucuronidated and sulfoconjugated analytes of interest. Carbon isotope ratio measurements from the administration studies are presented here. Epiandrosterone was less effective than the conventionally used target compounds for detection of the low dose application (transdermal gel). With intramuscular administration, epiandrosterone was more diagnostic than with transdermal administration, but it did not prolong the detection window more than the conventional target compounds. With subcutaneous administration, the doses administered to the subjects were varied and the effect on the epiandrosterone values was dependent on the magnitude of the dose administered. Epiandrosterone does not appear to be a useful marker in the detection of low dose testosterone administration. It is responsive to higher dose administration, but it does not provide an extension of the detection window relative to conventional target compounds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available