4.7 Article

Androgen Abuse in Athletes: Detection and Consequences

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 1533-1543

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2009-1579

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Doping with anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) both in sports (especially power sports) and among specific subsets of the population is rampant. With increasing availability of designer androgens, significant efforts are needed by antidoping authorities to develop sensitive methods to detect their use. Evidence Acquisition: The PubMed and Google Scholar search engines were used to identify publications addressing various forms of doping, methods employed in their detection, and adverse effects associated with their use. Evidence Synthesis: The list of drugs prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has grown in the last decade. The newer entries into this list include gonadotropins, estrogen antagonists, aromatase inhibitors, androgen precursors, and selective androgen receptor modulators. The use of mass spectrometry has revolutionized the detection of various compounds; however, challenges remain in identifying newer designer androgens because their chemical signature is unknown. Development of high throughput bioassays may be an answer to this problem. It appears that the use of AAS continues to be associated with premature mortality (especially cardiovascular) in addition to suppressed spermatogenesis, gynecomastia, and virilization. Conclusion: The attention that androgen abuse has received lately should be used as an opportunity to educate both athletes and the general population regarding their adverse effects. The development of sensitive detection techniques may help discourage (at least to some extent) the abuse of these compounds. Investigations are needed to identify ways to hasten the recovery of the gonadal axis in AAS users and to determine the mechanism of cardiac damage by these compounds. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95: 1533-1543, 2010)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据