4.3 Article

The Pharmacokinetic Profile of Inhaled and Oral Salbutamol in Elite Athletes With Asthma and Nonasthmatic Subjects

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 140-145

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e31823513e1

关键词

salbutamol; beta2-agonists; pharmacokinetics; doping; asthma

资金

  1. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
  2. Anti Doping Danmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Data on pharmacokinetics of inhaled and oral salbutamol in elite athletes with asthma are needed to differentiate between therapeutic use and doping in doping control. Design: An interventional open-label crossover. Setting: Respiratory Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg. Participants: Eight elite athletes with asthma and 10 nonasthmatic subjects aged 18 to 33 years. Intervention: Administration of 0.8 mg of inhaled salbutamol and 8 mg of oral salbutamol separated by 14 days. Main Outcome Measures: Urine concentration of free salbutamol. Results: Maximum urine concentrations peaked in the period of 0 to 4 hours after the administration of inhaled and oral salbutamol in both groups. Median concentrations after inhaled salbutamol and oral salbutamol were 401.6 and 2108.1 ng/mL in healthy subjects and 334.9 and 2975.2 ng/mL in elite athletes with asthma. There were no significant statistical differences between the groups. One sample exceeded the World Anti-Doping Agency threshold value of 1000 ng/mL with a urinary salbutamol concentration of 1057 ng/mL 4 hours after inhalation, when no correction for urine specific gravity was done. When this sample was corrected for urine specific gravity, the result was 661 ng/mL. Conclusions: We found no significant difference in pharmacokinetic profile of inhaled and oral salbutamol between elite athletes with asthma and nonasthmatic subjects. Our results indicate that urine salbutamol concentrations should be corrected for urine specific gravity when evaluating doping cases.

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

4.3
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