Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CONTEXT: Clinical evaluations that require excluding androgen abuse, a secretive, illicit activity, rely on the drug history, but its veracity for androgen abuse has neither been verified nor has any objective corroborating laboratory test been validated. OBJECTIVE: In a high-risk population, to (a) validate the drug history of androgen abuse objectively using state-of-the-art World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited antidoping laboratory urine mass spectrometry tests and (b) to determine what biochemical tests best distinguish androgen abuse from nonuse in this population. METHODS: Urine samples from current (n = 41) and past (n = 31) androgen abusers and nonusers (n = 21) were analyzed by comprehensive mass spectrometry-based detection tests for androgens and related drugs (ARD). RESULTS: No prohibited ARDs were identified among nonusers. Current users had a median of 5 (range 1-13) drugs detected comprising 176 ARDs among 220 drug identifications. Past users had a median of 1 (range 0-9) drugs detected comprising 21 ARDs among 43 drugs. Negative predictive value was high (>0.8) for those denying drug usage while positive predictive value was good (>0.6) for both those reporting currently using (current) and not using (nonusers plus past users) ARD. Serum luteinizing hormone (LH) alone had high, but imperfect, discriminatory power (89%) to distinguish between current and noncurrent androgen use. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrates that a negative drug history in a high-risk group has high reliability and that even a single suppressed serum LH exhibits high discrimination for objectively detecting androgen abuse.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shankara‐Narayana et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: