Pharmaceutical treatment of asthma symptoms in elite athletes - doping or therapy?

Asthma prevalence in German Olympic athletes: A comparison of winter and summer sport disciplines

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of asthma in elite athletes shows very wide ranges. It remains unclear to what extent this is influenced by the competition season (winter vs. summer) or the ventilation rate achieved during competition. The aim of this study was to evaluate prevalence of asthma in German elite winter and summer athletes from a wide range of sport disciplines and to identify high risk groups.

METHODS

In total, 265 German elite winter athletes (response 77%) and 283 German elite summer athletes (response 64%) answered validated respiratory questionnaires. Using logistic regression, the asthma risks associated with competition season and ventilation rate during competition, respectively, were investigated. A subset of winter athletes was also examined for their FENO-levels and lung function.

RESULTS

With respect to all asthma outcomes, no association was found with the competition season. Regarding the ventilation rate, athletes in high ventilation sports were at increased risk of asthma, as compared to athletes in low ventilation sports (doctors' diagnosed asthma: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.19-4.53; use of asthma medication: OR 4.46, 95% CI 1.52-13.10; current wheeze or use of asthma medication: OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.34-5.76). Athletes with doctors' diagnosed asthma were at an approximate four-fold risk of elevated FENO-values.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinically relevant finding of this study is that athletes' asthma seems to be more common in sports with high ventilation during competition, whereas the summer or winter season had no impact on the frequency of the disease. Among winter athletes, elevated FENO suggested suboptimal control of asthma.

Between medical treatment and performance enhancement: an investigation of how elite athletes experience Therapeutic Use Exemptions

BACKGROUND

Athletes can be allowed to use substances from the prohibited list (the doping list) if they have a medical condition. If so, a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is required. The boundaries between the use of pharmacological substances due to a medical need and doping are sometimes blurred. Although manipulating the system of TUE granting potentially represents an entry stage for doping, few studies examine how athletes perceive TUE management and relate this to current anti-doping policy.

METHODS

645 Danish elite athletes (mean age 22.12, SD=5.82) representing 40 sports completed a web-based questionnaire about their experience and perception of TUE (response rate: 43%).

RESULTS

19% of the respondents had been granted a TUE. 85% of athletes granted a TUE regarded their use of the TUE system as necessary to compete on equal terms with other athletes. Administrative hurdles for TUE prevented 7% of athletes from applying. 53% of the athletes considered that being "allowed" to dope by means of a TUE was of importance for their (hypothetical) wish to try out doping. 51% believed that athletes in their sport received TUEs without a medical need. Athletes granted TUEs had more than twice as high odds to distrust the efficacy of the system than athletes never granted a TUE. The belief that TUEs were misused was especially common among endurance athletes, regardless of them having experience with TUEs or not. 4% believed it would be okay to receive a TUE without a medical need.

CONCLUSION

The results confirm that TUE is a problem in anti-doping policy. The fact that distrust in TUE administration increases once an athlete has experience of TUEs represents a challenge for anti-doping policy. We suggest more critical research on TUEs be carried out in order to improve harmonization and increase transparency in the regulations.

The inhibitory activity of atractylenolide Ш, a sesquiterpenoid, on IgE-mediated mast cell activation and passive cutaneous anaphylaxis (PCA)

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

AT Ш, a sesquiterpenoid, is the major component of Atractylodes japonica Koidz that has been used as a traditional oriental medicine.

AIM OF THE STUDY

We investigated the anti-allergic activity of AT Ш and its mechanism of action.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The released amount of β-hexosaminidase in mast cells, a key parameter of degranulation, was measured. Anti-allergic potential of AT Ш was evaluated using passive cutaneous anaphylaxis in vivo. The anti-allergic mechanism of AT Ш was investigated by immunoblotting analysis, RT-PCR and measurement of [Ca(2+)]i in mast cells.

RESULTS

AT Ш significantly inhibited IgE/Ag-mediated degranulation with an IC(50) value (36 ± 4 μM) in RBL-2H3 cells without affecting cell viability. It also suppressed IgE/Ag-mediated passive cutaneous anaphylaxis (PCA) response with an ED(50) value (65 ± 41 mg/kg) in vivo. AT Ш suppressed the production of interleukin (IL-4) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha mRNAs more potent than the Src-family kinase inhibitor PP2 in RBL-2H3 cells at all concentrations. In order to elucidate the anti-allergic mechanisms of AT Ш in mast cells, we examined the activated levels of signaling molecules. AT Ш inhibited the phosphorylation of Lyn, Fyn, Syk, LAT, PLCγ, Gab2, Akt, p38, and JNK kinases expression. IgE/Ag-mediated [Ca(2+)]i elevation was significantly inhibited by AT Ш.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that AT Ш might be used as a therapeutic agent for allergic diseases.

Pharmacology and therapeutics of bronchodilators

Bronchodilators are central in the treatment of of airways disorders. They are the mainstay of the current management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are critical in the symptomatic management of asthma, although controversies around the use of these drugs remain. Bronchodilators work through their direct relaxation effect on airway smooth muscle cells. at present, three major classes of bronchodilators, β(2)-adrenoceptor (AR) agonists, muscarinic receptor antagonists, and xanthines are available and can be used individually or in combination. The use of the inhaled route is currently preferred to minimize systemic effects. Fast- and short-acting agents are best used for rescue of symptoms, whereas long-acting agents are best used for maintenance therapy. It has proven difficult to discover novel classes of bronchodilator drugs, although potential new targets are emerging. Consequently, the logical approach has been to improve the existing bronchodilators, although several novel broncholytic classes are under development. An important step in simplifying asthma and COPD management and improving adherence with prescribed therapy is to reduce the dose frequency to the minimum necessary to maintain disease control. Therefore, the incorporation of once-daily dose administration is an important strategy to improve adherence. Several once-daily β(2)-AR agonists or ultra-long-acting β(2)-AR-agonists (LABAs), such as indacaterol, olodaterol, and vilanterol, are already in the market or under development for the treatment of COPD and asthma, but current recommendations suggest the use of LABAs only in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid. In addition, some new potentially long-acting antimuscarinic agents, such as glycopyrronium bromide (NVA-237), aclidinium bromide, and umeclidinium bromide (GSK573719), are under development, as well as combinations of several classes of long-acting bronchodilator drugs, in an attempt to simplify treatment regimens as much as possible. This review will describe the pharmacology and therapeutics of old, new, and emerging classes of bronchodilator.

Asthma in elite athletes

Asthma is frequently found among elite athletes performing endurance sports such as swimming, rowing and cross-country skiing. Although these athletes often report symptoms while exercising, they seldom have symptoms at rest. Moreover, compared with nonathletic asthmatic individuals, elite athletes have been shown to have a different distribution of airway inflammation and unequal response to bronchial provocative test. Elite athletes display signs of exercise-induced symptoms, for example, nonasthmatic inspiratory wheeze, vocal cord dysfunction and cardiac arrhythmias, which could limit their physical capacity. Elite athletes should undergo comprehensive assessment to confirm an asthma diagnosis and determine its degree of severity. Treatment should be as for any other asthmatic individual, including the use of β2-agonist, inhaled steroid as well as leukotriene-antagonist. It should, however, be noted that daily use of β-agonists could expose elite athletes to the risk of developing tolerance towards these drugs. Use of β2-agonist should be replaced with daily inhaled corticosteroid treatment, the most important treatment of exercise-induced asthma. All physicians treating asthma should be aware of the doping aspects. Systemic β2-agonist intake is strictly prohibited, whereas inhaled treatment is allowed in therapeutic doses when asthma is documented and dispensation has been granted when needed.

β₂-Agonists and physical performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Inhaled β₂-agonists are commonly used as bronchodilators in the treatment of asthma. Their use in athletes, however, is restricted by anti-doping regulations. Controversies remain as to whether healthy elite athletes who use bronchodilators may gain a competitive advantage. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effects of inhaled and systemic β₂-agonists on physical performance in healthy, non-asthmatic subjects. To this end, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to August 2009. Reference lists were searched for additional relevant studies. The search criteria were for randomized controlled trials examining the effect of inhaled or systemic β₂-agonists on physical performance in healthy, non-asthmatic subjects. Two authors independently performed the selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Parallel-group and crossover trials were analysed separately. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data and, where possible, data were pooled using a fixed effects model. Twenty-six studies involving 403 participants (age range 7-30 years) compared inhaled β₂-agonists with placebo. No significant effect could be detected for inhaled β₂-agonists on maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂(max)) [MD -0.14 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹; 95% CI -1.07, 0.78; 16 studies], endurance time to exhaustion at 105-110% VO₂(max) (MD -1.5 s; 95% CI -15.6, 12.6; four studies), 20-km time trial duration (MD -4.4 s; 95% CI -23.5, 14.7; two studies), peak power (MD -0.14 W · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -0.54, 0.27; four studies) and total work during a 30-second Wingate test (MD 0.80 J · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -2.44, 4.05; five studies). Thirteen studies involving 172 participants (age range 7-22 years) compared systemic β₂-agonists with placebo, with 12 studies involving oral and one study involving intravenous salbutamol. A significant effect was detected for systemic β₂-agonists on endurance time to exhaustion at 80-85% VO₂(max) (MD 402 s; 95% CI 34, 770; two studies), but not for VO₂(max) (placebo 42.5 ± 1.7 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹, salbutamol 42.1 ± 2.9 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹, one study), endurance time to exhaustion at 70% VO₂(max) (MD 400 s; 95% CI -408, 1208; one study) or power output at 90% VO₂(max) (placebo 234.9 ± 16 W, salbutamol 235.5 ± 18.1 W, one study). A significant effect was shown for systemic β₂-agonists on peak power (MD 0.91 W · kg⁻¹; 95% CI 0.25, 1.57; four studies), but not on total work (MD 7.8 J · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -3.3, 18.9; four studies) during a 30-second Wingate test. There were no randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of systemic formoterol, salmeterol or terbutaline on physical performance. In conclusion, no significant effects were detected for inhaled β₂-agonists on endurance, strength or sprint performance in healthy athletes. There is some evidence indicating that systemic β₂-agonists may have a positive effect on physical performance in healthy subjects, but the evidence base is weak.

Can we measure accurately the prevalence of doping?

Questionnaires are used in the majority of the studies on doping prevalence in sport. Nevertheless, prevalence is not easy to evaluate and previous epidemiologic studies demonstrated a wide variance. This variance has mostly been explained by sample differences. The way to evaluate doping prevalence in the survey is questioned in this paper. A questionnaire was administered to 1810 amateur athletes (993 males, 817 females). Doping use was ascertained in various ways, using different definitions of doping and types of question in the survey. Depending on the definition of doping and the type of question used, the prevalence of doping obtained can differ enormously, between 1.3 and 39.2% of athletes. Marijuana and drugs for asthma were the two banned substances most used. The majority of athletes often ignored the banned list and did not use prohibited substances to dope. Using various ways to question athletes, observing the usage of substances, cross checking the data, taking into account the aim of substances uses and the various definitions of doping are necessary to give more reliable prevalence of doping. Moreover, doping at an amateur level seems to be less of a sport problem than a social problem.