Ultra high performance supercritical fluid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry for screening of doping agents. II: Analysis of biological samples.

The potential and applicability of UHPSFC-MS/MS for anti-doping screening in urine samples were tested for the first time. For this purpose, a group of 110 doping agents with diverse physicochemical properties was analyzed using two separation techniques, namely UHPLC-MS/MS and UHPSFC-MS/MS in both ESI+ and ESI- modes. The two approaches were compared in terms of selectivity, sensitivity, linearity and matrix effects. As expected, very diverse retentions and selectivities were obtained in UHPLC and UHPSFC, proving a good complementarity of these analytical strategies. In both conditions, acceptable peak shapes and MS detection capabilities were obtained within 7min analysis time, enabling the application of these two methods for screening purposes. Method sensitivity was found comparable for 46% of tested compounds, while higher sensitivity was observed for 21% of tested compounds in UHPLC-MS/MS and for 32% in UHPSFC-MS/MS. The latter demonstrated a lower susceptibility to matrix effects, which were mostly observed as signal suppression. In the case of UHPLC-MS/MS, more serious matrix effects were observed, leading typically to signal enhancement and the matrix effect was also concentration dependent, i.e., more significant matrix effects occurred at the lowest concentrations.

Coronary artery disease screening in diabetic patients: how good is guideline adherence?

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic patients are at high risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), which is the leading cause of death in this population. The Swiss Society of Endocrinology-Diabetology (SSED) recommends CAD screening for diabetic patients with > or = 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), by stress echocardiography (SE) or myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). The aim of this study was to assess the application of these guidelines and the treatment of CVRF in the diabetes outpatient clinics of the five Swiss University Hospitals. METHODS: The study was initiated in Lausanne and the study questionnaires were circulated to the endocrinologists of the five Swiss University Hospitals. Practitioners were asked to include consecutive patients attending the diabetes outpatient clinics over one month. Prevalence of CAD, screening methods for CAD, prevalence of CVRF, biological analyses over the last 6 months and medical therapy were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 302 subjects were included. The mean age was 53 +/- 14 years, 68% had type 2 diabetes, 27% type 1 and 5% other types. Among T2DM with > or = 2 CVRF, 45% were screened for CAD according to SSED guidelines. In T2DM 25% had blood pressure < or = 130/80 mm Hg, 15% a lipid profile within target, 23% HbA1c < or = 7.0%. Overall, 2% achieved all 3 targets. CONCLUSIONS: Only 45% of T2DM with > or = 2 CVRF were screened for CAD according to SSED guidelines and 2% of T2DM had proper control over all CVRF. Efforts are still necessary to improve CAD prevention and screening of diabetic patients in Swiss University Hospitals.