4.7 Review

The Potential Role of Oral Fluid in Antidoping Testing

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 2, 页码 307-322

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.209676

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
  2. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Currently, urine and blood are the only matrices authorized for antidoping testing by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Although the usefulness of urine and blood is proven, issues remain for monitoring some drug classes and for drugs prohibited only in competition. The alternative matrix oral fluid (OF) may offer solutions to some of these issues. OF collection is easy, noninvasive, and sex neutral and is directly observed, limiting potential adulteration, a major problem for urine testing. OF is used to monitor drug intake in workplace, clinical toxicology, criminal justice, and driving under the influence of drugs programs and potentially could complement urine and blood for antidoping testing in sports. CONTENT: This review outlines the present state of knowledge and the advantages and limitations of OF testing for each of the WADA drug classes and the research needed to advance OF testing as a viable alternative for antidoping testing. SUMMARY: Doping agents are either prohibited at all times or prohibited in competition only. Few OF data from controlled drug administration studies are available for substances banned at all times, whereas for some agents prohibited only in competition, sufficient data may be available to suggest appropriate analytes and cutoffs (analytical threshold concentrations) to identify recent drug use. Additional research is needed to characterize the disposition of many banned substances into OF; OF collection methods and doping agent stability in OF also require investigation to allow the accurate interpretation of OF tests for antidoping monitoring. (C) 2013 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

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