Monitoring 2-phenylethanamine and 2-(3-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide sulfate in doping controls.

2-Phenylethanamine (phenethylamine, PEA) represents the core structure of numerous drugs with stimulant-like properties and is explicitly featured as so-called specified substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. Due to its natural occurrence in humans as well as its presence in dietary products, studies concerning the ability of test methods to differentiate between an illicit intake and the renal elimination of endogenously produced PEA were indicated. Following the addition of PEA to the Prohibited List in January 2015, retrospective evaluation of routine doping control data of 10 190 urine samples generated by combined gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and nitrogen phosphorus-specific detection (GC-MS/NPD) was performed. Signals for PEA at approximate concentrations > 500 ng/mL were observed in 31 cases (0.3%), which were subjected to a validated isotope-dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (ID-LC-MS/MS) test method for accurate quantification of the target analyte. Further, using elimination study urine samples collected after a single oral administration of 250 mg of PEA hydrochloride to two healthy male volunteers, two tentatively identified metabolites of PEA were observed and evaluated concerning their utility as discriminative markers for PEA intake. The ID-LC-MS/MS approach was extended to allow for the simultaneous detection of PEA and 2-(3-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide sulfate (M1), and concentration ratios of M1 and PEA were calculated for elimination study urine samples and a total of 205 doping control urine samples that returned findings for PEA at estimated concentrations of 50-2500 ng/mL. Urine samples of the elimination study with PEA yielded concentration ratios of M1/PEA up to values of 9.4. Notably, the urinary concentration of PEA did increase with the intake of PEA only to a modest extent, suggesting a comprehensive metabolism of the orally administered substance. Conversely, doping control urine samples with elevated (>50 ng/mL) amounts of PEA returned quantifiable concentrations of M1 only in 3 cases, which yielded maximum ratios of M1/PEA of 0.9, indicating an origin of PEA other than an orally ingested drug formulation. Consequently, the consideration of analyte abundance ratios (e.g. M1/PEA) is suggested as a means to identify the use of PEA by athletes, but further studies to support potential decisive criteria are warranted.