Prevalence of therapeutic use exemptions at the Olympic Games and association with medals: an analysis of data from 2010 to 2018.

OBJECTIVES: The percentage of athletes with Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) competing in elite sport and the association with winning medals has been a matter of speculation in the absence of validated competitor numbers. We used International Olympic Committee (IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) data to identify athletes competing with TUEs at five Olympic Games (Games) and a possible association between having a TUE and winning an Olympic medal. METHODS: We used the IOC's competition results and WADA's TUE database to identify the number of TUEs for athlete competitions (ACs, defined as one athlete competing in one event) and any associations with medals among athletes competing in individual competitions. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for the probability of winning a medal among athletes with a TUE compared with that of athletes without a TUE. We also reported adjusted RR (RRadj) controlling for country resources, which is a potential confounder. RESULTS: During the Games from 2010 to 2018, there were 20 139 ACs and 2062 medals awarded. Athletes competed with a TUE in 0.9% (181/20 139) of ACs. There were 21/2062 medals won by athletes with a TUE. The RR for winning a medal with a TUE was 1.13 (95% CI: 0.73 to 1.65; p=0.54), and the RRadj was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.56; p=0.73). CONCLUSION: The number of athletes competing with valid TUEs at Games is <1%. Our results suggested that there is no meaningful association between being granted a TUE and the likelihood of winning a medal.

Glucocorticoid prescribing habits of sports medicine physicians working in high-performance sport: a 30-nation survey.

OBJECTIVES: Glucocorticoids are commonly prescribed in medicine. When administered via certain routes, glucocorticoids are prohibited for incompetition use by WADA. The glucocorticoid prescribing habits of sports medicine doctors have not been reported. METHODS: An online survey was distributed internationally to physicians working in high-performance sports. The survey queried the doctors about their use of glucocorticoids with athletes and their understanding of WADA's regulations regarding glucocorticoid use in competition. RESULTS: 603 sports medicine doctors from 30 different countries participated. The majority (>85%) routinely injected glucocorticoids and/or prescribed glucocorticoids by other routes. There were substantial differences in the common routes of injection as well as types of glucocorticoid used among the physicians from various countries. A relatively small percentage of sports doctors (<25%) accurately identified which routes of glucocorticoid administration are prohibited in competition by WADA. There was a great variation in how long before competition the use of glucocorticoids would cause the doctor to consider applying for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). A better understanding of the clearance rates of glucocorticoids from athletes' bodies would greatly aid sports medicine doctors' decisions on how and when to apply for a TUE. A small number of doctors had observed side effects of glucocorticoid administration, with the majority of side effects being minor in nature. CONCLUSION: Glucocorticoids are widely prescribed by sports physicians. There is a need to better educate sports physicians on the current WADA regulations in relation to glucocorticoid administration.

Glucocorticoids in elite sport: current status, controversies and innovative management strategies-a narrative review.

The use of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs), as well as local injections, continues to be a controversial issue in the sport/anti-doping community. There is widespread and legitimate use of GCs for numerous health conditions, yet there are concerns about side effects and the possibility of enhanced athletic performance in limited settings. This is compounded by the uncertainty regarding the prevalence of GC use, mechanisms underlying physiological effects and complex pharmacokinetics of different formulations. While WADA continues to promote research in this complex area, some international sporting federations, major event organisers and professional sports leagues have introduced innovative rules such as needle policies, mandatory rest periods and precompetition guidelines to promote judicious use of GCs, focusing on athlete health and supervision of medical personnel. These complementary sport-specific rules are helping to ensure the appropriate use of GCs in athletes where overuse is a particular concern. Where systemic GCs are medically necessary, Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) may be granted after careful evaluation by TUE Committees based on specific and strict criteria. Continued vigilance and cooperation between physicians, scientists and anti-doping organisations is essential to ensure that GC use in sport respects not only principles of fairness and adherence to the rules but also promotes athlete health and well-being. The purpose of this narrative review is to summarise the use and management of GCs in sport illustrating several innovative programmes by sport leagues and federations.

Cannabis and the Health and Performance of the Elite Athlete.

OBJECTIVE: Cannabis (marijuana) is undergoing extensive regulatory review in many global jurisdictions for medical and nonmedical access. Cannabis has potential impact on the health of athletes as well as on performance in both training and in competition. The aim of this general review is to identify and highlight the challenges in interpreting information with respect to elite athletic performance, and to point to important research areas that need to be addressed. DATA SOURCES: A nonsystematic literature review was conducted using Medline and PubMed for articles related to cannabis/marijuana use and sports/athletic performance; abstracts were reviewed by lead author and key themes identified and explored. MAIN RESULTS: Cannabis may be primarily inhaled or ingested orally for a range of medical and nonmedical reasons; evidence for efficacy is limited but promising for chronic pain management. Although evidence for serious harms from cannabis use on health of athletes is limited, one should be cognizant of the potential for abuse and mental health issues. Although the prevalence of cannabis use among elite athletes is not well-known, use is associated with certain high-risk sports. There is no evidence for cannabis use as a performance-enhancing drug. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and nonmedical cannabis use among athletes reflects changing societal and cultural norms and experiences. Although cannabis use is more prevalent in some athletes engaged in high-risk sports, there is no direct evidence of performance-enhancing effects in athletes. The potential beneficial effects of cannabis as part of a pain management protocol, including reducing concussion-related symptoms, deserve further attention.

IOC consensus statement: dietary supplements and the high-performance athlete.

Nutrition usually makes a small but potentially valuable contribution to successful performance in elite athletes, and dietary supplements can make a minor contribution to this nutrition programme. Nonetheless, supplement use is widespread at all levels of sport. Products described as supplements target different issues, including (1) the management of micronutrient deficiencies, (2) supply of convenient forms of energy and macronutrients, and (3) provision of direct benefits to performance or (4) indirect benefits such as supporting intense training regimens. The appropriate use of some supplements can benefit the athlete, but others may harm the athlete's health, performance, and/or livelihood and reputation (if an antidoping rule violation results). A complete nutritional assessment should be undertaken before decisions regarding supplement use are made. Supplements claiming to directly or indirectly enhance performance are typically the largest group of products marketed to athletes, but only a few (including caffeine, creatine, specific buffering agents and nitrate) have good evidence of benefits. However, responses are affected by the scenario of use and may vary widely between individuals because of factors that include genetics, the microbiome and habitual diet. Supplements intended to enhance performance should be thoroughly trialled in training or simulated competition before being used in competition. Inadvertent ingestion of substances prohibited under the antidoping codes that govern elite sport is a known risk of taking some supplements. Protection of the athlete's health and awareness of the potential for harm must be paramount; expert professional opinion and assistance is strongly advised before an athlete embarks on supplement use.

Making Decisions About Supplement Use.

The use of dietary supplements is widespread among athletes in all sports and at all levels of competition, as it is in the general population. For the athlete training at the limits of what is sustainable, or for those seeking a shortcut to achieving their aims, supplements offer the prospect of bridging the gap between success and failure. Surveys show, however, that this is often not an informed choice and that the knowledge level among consumers is often low and that they are often influenced in their decisions by individuals with an equally inadequate understanding of the issues at stake. Supplement use may do more harm than good, unless it is based on a sound analysis of the evidence. Where a deficiency of an essential nutrient has been established by appropriate investigations, supplementation can provide a rapid and effective correction of the problem. Supplements can also provide a convenient and time-efficient solution to achieving the necessary intake of key nutrients such as protein and carbohydrate. Athletes contemplating the use of supplements should consider the potential for both positive and negative outcomes. Some ergogenic supplements may be of benefit to some athletes in some specific contexts, but many are less effective than is claimed. Some may be harmful to health of performance and some may contain agents prohibited by anti-doping regulations. Athletes should make informed choices that maximize the benefits while minimizing the risks.

IOC Consensus Statement: Dietary Supplements and the High-Performance Athlete.

Nutrition usually makes a small but potentially valuable contribution to successful performance in elite athletes, and dietary supplements can make a minor contribution to this nutrition program. Nonetheless, supplement use is widespread at all levels of sport. Products described as supplements target different issues, including the management of micronutrient deficiencies, supply of convenient forms of energy and macronutrients, and provision of direct benefits to performance or indirect benefits such as supporting intense training regimens. The appropriate use of some supplements can offer benefits to the athlete, but others may be harmful to the athlete's health, performance, and/or livelihood and reputation if an anti-doping rule violation results. A complete nutritional assessment should be undertaken before decisions regarding supplement use are made. Supplements claiming to directly or indirectly enhance performance are typically the largest group of products marketed to athletes, but only a few (including caffeine, creatine, specific buffering agents and nitrate) have good evidence of benefits. However, responses are affected by the scenario of use and may vary widely between individuals because of factors that include genetics, the microbiome, and habitual diet. Supplements intended to enhance performance should be thoroughly trialed in training or simulated competition before implementation in competition. Inadvertent ingestion of substances prohibited under the anti-doping codes that govern elite sport is a known risk of taking some supplements. Protection of the athlete's health and awareness of the potential for harm must be paramount, and expert professional opinion and assistance is strongly advised before embarking on supplement use.

International Olympic Committee consensus statement on pain management in elite athletes.

Pain is a common problem among elite athletes and is frequently associated with sport injury. Both pain and injury interfere with the performance of elite athletes. There are currently no evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines for the management of pain in elite athletes. Typically, pain management consists of the provision of analgesics, rest and physical therapy. More appropriately, a treatment strategy should address all contributors to pain including underlying pathophysiology, biomechanical abnormalities and psychosocial issues, and should employ therapies providing optimal benefit and minimal harm. To advance the development of a more standardised, evidence-informed approach to pain management in elite athletes, an IOC Consensus Group critically evaluated the current state of the science and practice of pain management in sport and prepared recommendations for a more unified approach to this important topic.

Time for change: a roadmap to guide the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code 2015.

A medical and scientific multidisciplinary consensus meeting was held from 29 to 30 November 2013 on Anti-Doping in Sport at the Home of FIFA in Zurich, Switzerland, to create a roadmap for the implementation of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. The consensus statement and accompanying papers set out the priorities for the antidoping community in research, science and medicine. The participants achieved consensus on a strategy for the implementation of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. Key components of this strategy include: (1) sport-specific risk assessment, (2) prevalence measurement, (3) sport-specific test distribution plans, (4) storage and reanalysis, (5) analytical challenges, (6) forensic intelligence, (7) psychological approach to optimise the most deterrent effect, (8) the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) and confounding factors, (9) data management system (Anti-Doping Administration & Management System (ADAMS), (10) education, (11) research needs and necessary advances, (12) inadvertent doping and (13) management and ethics: biological data. True implementation of the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code will depend largely on the ability to align thinking around these core concepts and strategies. FIFA, jointly with all other engaged International Federations of sports (Ifs), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), are ideally placed to lead transformational change with the unwavering support of the wider antidoping community. The outcome of the consensus meeting was the creation of the ad hoc Working Group charged with the responsibility of moving this agenda forward.

The Athlete Biological Passport: an integral element of innovative strategies in antidoping.

Concern for the health of athletes and integrity of sport resulted in the banning of specific substances although many years passed before analytical testing took place. Soon doping control programmes became synonymous with urine tests and adverse analytical findings. This system has its limits due to the detection window of prohibited substances, the timing of sample collections and the sophistication of some doping regimens. There have been a number of situations where these limits were demonstrated by athletes who proclaimed innocence based on passing their analytical tests only to later confess to doping. New strategies were called for to protect clean athletes. In the current World Anti-Doping Code, there are eight means to an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV). Article 2.2 states that the use of a prohibited substance may be established by any reliable means including witness statements, documentary evidence or evaluations of longitudinal profiling. In 2006, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) with the support of some International Federations (IFs) gathered a group of experts to develop a harmonised programme on longitudinal profiling, or serial analysis of indirect biomarkers of doping, that was both scientifically and legally robust. This culminated in the WADA Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Operating Guidelines and Technical Documents, published in 2009. The ABP is a paradigm that infers the use of prohibited substance (or method) by the monitoring of discriminant biomarkers over time. The haematological module detects blood manipulation by the use of erythropoietic stimulating agents or via blood transfusions. The steroidal module aims to identify endogenous anabolic androgenic steroids when administered exogenously and other indirect steroid doping substances or methods. Other ABP modules (endocrine, 'omics') are being developed. The term passport, first coined in 2000, is now defined in the ABP Guidelines as the longitudinal profile and all other relevant information including training, competitions and information derived from investigations. In the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, investigations or enquiries gathered from other sources will play an even more prominent role.

Current implementation and future of the Athlete Biological Passport.

During the last four decades, the main instrument at the disposal of anti-doping authorities has been the detection of prohibited substances in biological samples collected from athletes. However, the availability of substances identical to those produced by the human body, such as EPO, testosterone and GH, necessitated a new drug-testing paradigm. From the early 2000's, the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was proposed as an alternative means to drug testing. Doping leaves a characteristic fingerprint on the biology of the athlete and the ABP is used to prove the act of doping from the detection of that fingerprint. Once a biomarker of doping is implemented in the ABP, it will continue to remain valid and should be able to detect the physiological changes brought on by performance-enhancing drugs that have not yet been invented. However, the sensitivity of the ABP to detect doping is limited if the physiological result of a low level of doping remains within the individual's own reference range. Recent advances in proteomics and metabolomics show the huge potential of the ABP.

Acute compartment syndrome: how long before muscle necrosis occurs?

OBJECTIVES: Acute compartment syndrome (ACS) is a limb-threatening condition often first diagnosed by emergency physicians. Little is known about the rapidity with which permanent damage may occur. Our objective was to estimate the time to muscle necrosis in patients with ACS. METHODS: This historical cohort analysis of all patients who had a fasciotomy for ACS was conducted in 4 large teaching hospitals. Diagnosis was confirmed clinically or by needle measurement of compartment pressure. Muscle necrosis was determined using pathology reports and surgeons' operative protocols. We used descriptive statistics and estimated tissue survival probability using the Vertex exchange method for interval-censored data. RESULTS: Between 1989 and 1997 there were 76 cases of ACS. Most cases occurred in young men (median age 32) as a result of a traumatic incident (82%). Forty-nine percent (37/76) of all patients suffered some level of muscle necrosis, and 30% (11/37) of those with necrosis lost more than 25% of the muscle belly. Necrosis occurred in 2 of 4 cases in which the patient had been operated on within 3 hours of the injury, and our exploratory survival analysis estimates that 37% (95% confidence interval, 13%-51%) of all cases of ACS may develop muscle necrosis within 3 hours of the injury. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest cohort of ACS and the first clinical estimation of time to muscle necrosis ever published. Ischemia from ACS can cause muscle necrosis before the 3-hour period post-trauma that is traditionally considered safe. Further research to identify risk factors associated with the development of early necrosis is necessary.