A phase 2 liver trial where the add-on drug didn't help — and the base drug quietly did
Read the Sunday Brief →

Study wrapper · #232

Cationic exchange SPE combined with triple quadrupole UHPLC-MS/MS for detection of GHRHs in urine samples.

Cristea CD, Radu M, Toboc A, et al. Analytical biochemistry. 2023.

Editor's note

A focused anti-doping method paper. The team developed and validated a detection assay for several GHRH-type peptides, tesamorelin, CJC-1295, sermorelin (both the 1-29 and 3-29 forms), and somatorelin, in urine, using solid-phase extraction with weak cation exchange followed by triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry. Performance was strong for the intended forensic purpose, with detection down to 0.2 ng/mL and validation against World Anti-Doping Agency technical standards for selectivity, stability, and recovery. As with the other detection studies in this set, the GHRH analogues feature only as analytes to be measured; there is no information here about efficacy, mechanism, dosing, or safety of Tesamorelin, Sermorelin, or CJC-1295. The useful context for readers is narrow: these compounds are banned in sport and are detectable by validated laboratory methods. This is analytical validation, not clinical evidence.

Plain-language abstract

This study describes a laboratory test for detecting banned growth-hormone-releasing peptides in urine, not their effects in the body. Because these peptides are prohibited in sport and appear in urine at very low concentrations, they are difficult to measure. The researchers developed and validated a method for several of them, tesamorelin, CJC-1295, and different forms of sermorelin, by first cleaning up the urine sample using a chemical extraction step (weak cation exchange) and then measuring the peptides with a triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer. The method could detect concentrations as low as 0.2 nanograms per millilitre and reliably measure down to about 0.6 nanograms per millilitre. It was validated against anti-doping standards for accuracy, reliability, stability, and recovery. The authors concluded it is sensitive and reliable enough for routine screening in anti-doping laboratories. The study is only about detecting these peptides; it does not investigate whether they work or whether they are safe.