Dataset Information

Comparison of nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water pipe and cigarette smoking.

ABSTRACT: Smoking tobacco preparations in a water pipe (hookah) is widespread in many places of the world and is perceived by many as relatively safe. We investigated biomarkers of toxicant exposure with water pipe compared with cigarette smoking.We conducted a crossover study to assess daily nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water pipe and cigarette smoking in 13 people who were experienced in using both products.When smoking an average of 3 water pipe sessions compared with smoking 11 cigarettes per day (cpd), water pipe use was associated with a significantly lower intake of nicotine, greater exposure to carbon monoxide (CO), and a different pattern of carcinogen exposure compared with cigarette smoking, with greater exposure to benzene, and high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), but less exposure to tobacco-specific nitrosamines, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, acrylonitrile, propylene oxide, ethylene oxide, and low molecular weight PAHs.A different pattern of carcinogen exposure might result in a different cancer risk profile between cigarette and water pipe smoking. Of particular concern is the risk of leukemia related to high levels of benzene exposure with water pipe use.Smoking tobacco in water pipes has gained popularity in the United States and around the world. Many believe that water pipe smoking is not addictive and less harmful than cigarette smoking. We provide data on toxicant exposure that will help guide regulation and public education regarding water pipe health risk.

SUBMITTER: Jacob P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3650103 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water pipe and cigarette smoking.

Jacob Peyton P Abu Raddaha Ahmad H AH Dempsey Delia D Havel Christopher C Peng Margaret M Yu Lisa L Benowitz Neal L NL

Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 20130305 5

<h4>Background</h4>Smoking tobacco preparations in a water pipe (hookah) is widespread in many places of the world and is perceived by many as relatively safe. We investigated biomarkers of toxicant exposure with water pipe compared with cigarette smoking.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a crossover study to assess daily nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water pipe and cigarette smoking in 13 people who were experienced in using both products.<h4>Results</h4>When smoking an average of 3 water pi ...[more]

PMID: 23462922

Similar Datasets

Project description:Given the rapid increase in the popularity of e-cigarettes and the paucity of associated longitudinal health-related data, the need to assess the potential risks of long-term use is essential.To compare exposure to nicotine, tobacco-related carcinogens, and toxins among smokers of combustible cigarettes only, former smokers with long-term e-cigarette use only, former smokers with long-term nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use only, long-term dual users of both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and long-term users of both combustible cigarettes and NRT.Cross-sectional study.United Kingdom.The following 5 groups were purposively recruited: combustible cigarette-only users, former smokers with long-term (?6 months) e-cigarette-only or NRT-only use, and long-term dual combustible cigarette-e-cigarette or combustible cigarette-NRT users (n = 36 to 37 per group; total n = 181).Sociodemographic and smoking characteristics were assessed. Participants provided urine and saliva samples and were analyzed for biomarkers of nicotine, tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).After confounders were controlled for, no clear between-group differences in salivary or urinary biomarkers of nicotine intake were found. The e-cigarette-only and NRT-only users had significantly lower metabolite levels for TSNAs (including the carcinogenic metabolite 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol [NNAL]) and VOCs (including metabolites of the toxins acrolein; acrylamide; acrylonitrile; 1,3-butadiene; and ethylene oxide) than combustible cigarette-only, dual combustible cigarette-e-cigarette, or dual combustible cigarette-NRT users. The e-cigarette-only users had significantly lower NNAL levels than all other groups. Combustible cigarette-only, dual combustible cigarette-NRT, and dual combustible cigarette-e-cigarette users had largely similar levels of TSNA and VOC metabolites.Cross-sectional design with self-selected sample.Former smokers with long-term e-cigarette-only or NRT-only use may obtain roughly similar levels of nicotine compared with smokers of combustible cigarettes only, but results varied. Long-term NRT-only and e-cigarette-only use, but not dual use of NRTs or e-cigarettes with combustible cigarettes, is associated with substantially reduced levels of measured carcinogens and toxins relative to smoking only combustible cigarettes.Cancer Research UK.

Project description:IntroductionAs the science base around the potential benefits of a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes grows, information on the potential effects on adolescent smokers is a high priority. The aim of this randomized trial was to test the influence of 3-week exposure to reduced nicotine cigarettes in a sample of adolescent daily smokers.Aims and methodsIn this double-blind, two-arm, randomized controlled trial (NCT0258731), following a 1-week baseline, adolescent daily smokers not currently intending to quit (ages 15-19 years, n = 66 randomized) were urn randomized to use either very low nicotine content (VLNC; 0.4 mg/g; n = 33) or normal nicotine content (NNC, 15.8 mg/g; n = 33) research cigarettes for 3 weeks. Participants attended five study sessions at our clinical laboratory. The primary outcome was average total cigarettes smoked per day (CPD; including both study and non-study cigarettes) at week 3.ResultsStepwise regression results demonstrated that compared with NNC cigarettes (n = 31), assignment to VLNC cigarettes (n = 29), was associated with 2.4 fewer CPD on average than NNC assignment (p < .05) week 3 when controlling for covariates (p < .01, Cohen's d = 0.52 n = 60 completed all procedures). VLNC cigarettes were also associated with lower levels of craving reduction than NNC cigarettes (Questionnaire on Smoking Urges Factor 2, p < .05). No group differences were found for secondary outcomes.ConclusionsAdolescent participants assigned to VLNC use for 3 weeks smoked fewer total CPD relative to the NNC group. Overall, data suggest that a VLNC policy would reduce cigarette smoking in adolescents who smoke, but high rates of incomplete adherence suggest that youth may seek alternative sources of nicotine in this scenario.ImplicationsThe US Food and Drug Administration may enact a reduced-nicotine product standard that would affect all commercially available cigarettes. One important population affected by this policy would be adolescents who smoke. This study, the first clinical trial of VLNC cigarettes in adolescents, demonstrates that adolescents switched to VLNC cigarettes for 3 weeks reduced their CPD relative to the normal-nicotine cigarette control group, without leading to increased respiratory symptoms or increased withdrawal. Biomarkers indicated the use of other sources of nicotine, suggesting that such a policy will need to consider approaches to assist in transitioning away from smoking.

Project description:Many adolescents and young adults use alternative tobacco products, such as water pipes and snus, instead of cigarettes.To assess whether prior water pipe tobacco smoking and snus use among never smokers are risk factors for subsequent cigarette smoking.We conducted a 2-wave national longitudinal study in the United States among 2541 individuals aged 15 to 23 years old. At baseline (October 25, 2010, through June 11, 2011), we ascertained whether respondents had smoked cigarettes, smoked water pipe tobacco, or used snus. At the 2-year follow-up (October 27, 2012, through March 31, 2013), we determined whether baseline non-cigarette smokers had subsequently tried cigarette smoking, were current (past 30 days) cigarette smokers, or were high-intensity cigarette smokers. We fit multivariable logistic regression models among baseline non-cigarette smokers to assess whether baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and baseline snus use were associated with subsequent cigarette smoking initiation and current cigarette smoking, accounting for established sociodemographic and behavioral risk factors. We fit similarly specified multivariable ordinal logistic regression models to assess whether baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and baseline snus use were associated with high-intensity cigarette smoking at follow-up.Water pipe tobacco smoking and the use of snus at baseline.Among baseline non-cigarette smokers, cigarette smoking initiation, current (past 30 days) cigarette smoking at follow-up, and the intensity of cigarette smoking at follow-up.Among 1596 respondents, 1048 had never smoked cigarettes at baseline, of whom 71 had smoked water pipe tobacco and 20 had used snus at baseline. At follow-up, accounting for behavioral and sociodemographic risk factors, baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and snus use were independently associated with cigarette smoking initiation (adjusted odds ratios: 2.56; 95% CI, 1.46-4.47 and 3.73; 95% CI, 1.43-9.76, respectively), current cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratios: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.01-6.06 and 6.19; 95% CI, 1.86-20.56, respectively), and higher intensity of cigarette smoking (adjusted proportional odds ratios: 2.55; 95% CI, 1.48-4.38 and 4.45; 95% CI, 1.75-11.27, respectively).Water pipe tobacco smoking and the use of snus independently predicted the onset of cigarette smoking and current cigarette smoking at follow-up. Comprehensive Food and Drug Administration regulation of these tobacco products may limit their appeal to youth and curb the onset of cigarette smoking.

Project description:Electronic cigarettes (ECs) and tobacco cigarettes (TCs) both release nicotine, a sympathomimetic drug. We hypothesized that baseline heart rate variability (HRV) and hemodynamics would be similar in chronic EC and TC smokers and that after acute EC use, changes in HRV and hemodynamics would be attributable to nicotine, not non-nicotine, constituents in EC aerosol. In 100 smokers, including 58 chronic EC users and 42 TC smokers, baseline HRV and hemodynamics [blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR)] were compared. To isolate the acute effects of nicotine vs. non-nicotine constituents in EC aerosol, we compared changes in HRV, BP, and HR in EC users after using an EC with nicotine (ECN), EC without nicotine (EC0), nicotine inhaler (NI), or sham vaping (control). Outcomes were also compared with TC smokers after smoking one TC. Baseline HRV and hemodynamics were not different in chronic EC users and TC smokers. In EC users, BP and HR, but not HRV outcomes, increased only after using the ECN, consistent with a nicotine effect on BP and HR. Similarly, in TC smokers, BP and HR but not HRV outcomes increased after smoking one TC. Despite a similar increase in nicotine, the hemodynamic increases were significantly greater after TC smokers smoked one TC compared with the increases after EC users used the ECN. In conclusion, chronic EC and TC smokers exhibit a similar pattern of baseline HRV. Acute increases in BP and HR in EC users are attributable to nicotine, not non-nicotine, constituents in EC aerosol. The greater acute pressor effects after TC compared with ECN may be attributable to non-nicotine, combusted constituents in TC smoke.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Chronic electronic cigarette (EC) users and tobacco cigarette (TC) smokers exhibit a similar level of sympathetic nerve activity as estimated by heart rate variability. Acute increases in blood pressure (BP) and heart rate in EC users are attribute to nicotine, not non-nicotine, constituents in EC aerosol. Acute TC smoking increased BP significantly more than acute EC use, despite similar increases in plasma nicotine, suggestive of additional adverse vascular effects attributable to combusted, non-nicotine constituents in TC smoke.

Project description:Background and aimsSmoking during pregnancy is strongly associated with negative pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. Some guidelines recommend nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation during pregnancy, but adherence with NRT is generally poor and could be partially explained by nicotine-related safety concerns. We compared pregnant women's cotinine and nicotine exposures from smoking with those when they were abstinent from smoking and using NRT.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis and narrative reporting. Twelve studies were included: in most, only one type of NRT was used. Seven were quality-assessed and judge of variable quality.SettingStudies from any setting that reported nicotine or cotinine levels when smoking and later when abstinent and using NRT.ParticipantsPregnant women who smoked and became abstinent but used NRT either in a cessation study or in a study investigating other impacts of NRT.MeasurementsWe quality-assessed longitudinal cohort studies using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. For meta-analysis, we used mean within-person differences in cotinine or nicotine levels when smoking and at later follow-up when abstinent and using NRT. Where such data were not available, we calculated differences in group mean levels and reported these narratively, indicating where data were not completely longitudinal.FindingsOf the 12 included studies, four cotinine-measuring studies (n = 83) were combined in a random effects meta-analysis; the pooled estimate for the mean difference (95% confidence intervals) in cotinine levels between when women were smoking and abstinent but using NRT was 75.3 (57.1 to 93.4) ng/ml (I2 = 42.1%, P = 0.11). Of eight narratively-described studies, six reported lower cotinine and/or nicotine levels when abstinent and using NRT; two had mixed findings, with higher levels when abstinent but using NRT reported from at least one assay time-point.ConclusionsPregnant women who use nicotine replacement therapy instead of smoking reduce their nicotine exposure.

Dataset Information

Comparison of nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water pipe and cigarette smoking.

Publications

Comparison of nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water pipe and cigarette smoking.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets