How to confirm C.E.R.A. doping in athletes' blood?

C.E.R.A. (Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator) is a new third-generation erythropoiesis-stimulating agent that has recently been linked with abuse in endurance sports. The anti-doping community rapidly reacted by releasing a high-throughput screening ELISA allowing the detection of C.E.R.A. doping in athletes' blood. In order to return adverse analytical findings, anti-doping laboratories, however, need, as far as possible, to confirm the presence of the drug in athletes' samples through orthogonal methods. This article focuses on the comparison of 2 proposed confirmation assays based on gel electrophoresis that were coupled with a new sample immunopurification method. IEF, the classical method used to target erythropoietin (EPO) and its recombinant analogues in athletes' samples, and SARKOSYL-PAGE were applied to the plasma samples of subjects having received a single injection of C.E.R.A. It was demonstrated that SARKOSYL-PAGE was at least 6 times more sensitive than IEF, with comparable specificity. A longer detection window coupled with easier interpretation criteria led us to recommend the use of SARKOSYL-PAGE to confirm C.E.R.A. presence in athletes' blood.

New electrocardiographic criteria for discriminating between Brugada types 2 and 3 patterns and incomplete right bundle branch block.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate new electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for discriminating between incomplete right bundle branch block (RBBB) and the Brugada types 2 and 3 ECG patterns. BACKGROUND: Brugada syndrome can manifest as either type 2 or type 3 pattern. The latter should be distinguished from incomplete RBBB, present in 3% of the population. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with either type 2 or type 3 Brugada pattern that were referred for an antiarrhythmic drug challenge (AAD) were included. Before AAD, 2 angles were measured from ECG leads V(1) and/or V(2) showing incomplete RBBB: 1) α, the angle between a vertical line and the downslope of the r'-wave, and 2) β, the angle between the upslope of the S-wave and the downslope of the r'-wave. Baseline angle values, alone or combined with QRS duration, were compared between patients with negative and positive results on AAD. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed to identify optimal discriminative cutoff values. RESULTS: The mean β angle was significantly smaller in the 14 patients with negative results on AAD compared to the 24 patients with positive results on AAD (36 ± 20° vs. 62 ± 20°, p < 0.01). Its optimal cutoff value was 58°, which yielded a positive predictive value of 73% and a negative predictive value of 87% for conversion to type 1 pattern on AAD; α was slightly less sensitive and specific compared with β. When the angles were combined with QRS duration, it tended to improve discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected Brugada syndrome, simple ECG criteria can enable discrimination between incomplete RBBB and types 2 and 3 Brugada patterns.