Differences between the effects of conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes and dual product use on urine cotinine levels.

Myung-Bae Park, Jung-Kyu Choi
Author Information
  1. Myung-Bae Park: Department of Gerontal Health and Welfare, Pai Chai University, Dae Jeon, Republic of Korea.
  2. Jung-Kyu Choi: Institute of Health Insurance and Clinical Research, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to evaluate the differences in urine cotinine (UC) concentration based on the use of conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes (ECs), and dual product use, and determine the use of ECs in the real world.
METHODS: In total, 15099 subjects were classified into non-smokers, cigarette smokers (c-smokers), e-cigarette smokers (e-smokers), and dual users, and their UC (a classical biomarker of smoking) values were compared. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed after adjusting for age, sex and job status to analyze the differences in UC concentration in relation to type of smoking. The reasons for using ECs and the experience of cigarette use before using ECs were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 15099 people, 76.4% were non-smokers, 20.9% c-smokers, 2.3% dual users, and 0.4% were e-smokers. There were significant differences in UC concentration among the groups (p<0.001). The geometric mean (GM) UC concentration was 4.45 ng/mL. UC concentration was the highest among dual users (GM: 1030.5, median: 1258.9 ng/mL), followed by c-smokers (GM: 842.5, median: 1163.0 ng/mL), e-smokers (GM: 119.5, median: 309.7 ng/mL), and non-smokers (GM: 0.8, median: 0.8 ng/mL). Among the EC users, the rate of using ECs for health or social convenience was 81.9%. Among e-smokers, 11.4% had never smoked previously.
CONCLUSIONS: The UC concentration was the highest among dual users. However, for the female population, the UC concentration was the highest among e-smokers. The vast majority of EC users were dual users. In addition, there were no differences in the frequency of cigarette smoking between the dual user and c-smoker groups. Consequently, EC use did not lead to a decrease in cigarette use, but did lead to an increase in UC concentration. Therefore, in the real world, dual users have higher cotinine levels than the other groups, which could indicate that they take more nicotine by cigarettes or ECs, or are more addicted than others.

Keywords

References

  1. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2016 Jul;26(6):414-8 [PMID: 27278718]
  2. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 9;12(3):e0173625 [PMID: 28278239]
  3. Tob Control. 2019 Jan;28(1):13-19 [PMID: 29419488]
  4. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 Jun;17(6):704-9 [PMID: 25335945]
  5. Int J Toxicol. 2016 Mar-Apr;35(2):179-85 [PMID: 26681385]
  6. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Mar 24;12(4):3428-38 [PMID: 25811767]
  7. Tob Control. 2019 Jan;28(1):42-49 [PMID: 29574448]
  8. BMJ. 2018 Jan 17;360:j5543 [PMID: 29343486]
  9. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 Jul 9;20(8):954-961 [PMID: 29106669]
  10. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD010216 [PMID: 25515689]
  11. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Oct 20;163(8):608-21 [PMID: 26389650]
  12. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2015 Sep;8(9):873-8 [PMID: 26333731]
  13. Pediatrics. 2014 Jul;134(1):e29-36 [PMID: 24918224]
  14. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015 Mar;1340:65-74 [PMID: 25557889]
  15. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Jan 1;21(1):127-131 [PMID: 29444275]
  16. JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Mar 1;2(3):278-284 [PMID: 28146259]
  17. Pediatrics. 2015 Nov;136(5):1018-26 [PMID: 26504128]
  18. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1998 May;71(3):162-8 [PMID: 9591157]
  19. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2014 Apr;26(2):105-9 [PMID: 25092958]
  20. Eur J Clin Invest. 2016 Aug;46(8):698-706 [PMID: 27322745]
  21. BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 23;7(2):e012680 [PMID: 28235965]
  22. BMC Womens Health. 2014 Dec 12;14:156 [PMID: 25495192]
  23. BMC Public Health. 2011 Oct 11;11:786 [PMID: 21989407]
  24. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 30;10(3):e0122544 [PMID: 25822251]
  25. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Jan 1;21(1):48-54 [PMID: 29425383]
  26. Prev Med Rep. 2016 Jun 10;4:169-78 [PMID: 27413679]
  27. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Mar;44(3):207-15 [PMID: 23415116]
  28. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2010 Nov;5(6):473-9 [PMID: 20978390]
  29. Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Feb;4(2):116-28 [PMID: 26776875]
  30. BMC Public Health. 2017 Sep 8;17(1):686 [PMID: 28882123]
  31. BMJ. 2013 Jun 14;346:f3840 [PMID: 23771038]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0dualUCconcentrationusersuseECscigarettee-smokersng/mLdifferencescotinine0amongGM:median:urinecigarettesnon-smokersc-smokerssmokingusing4%groupshighest5ECconventionale-cigarettesproductrealworld15099smokerse-cigarette9%8AmonguserleadlevelsINTRODUCTION:goalstudyevaluatebaseddetermineMETHODS:totalsubjectsclassifiedclassicalbiomarkervaluescomparedAnalysiscovarianceANCOVAperformedadjustingagesexjobstatusanalyzerelationtypereasonsexperienceanalyzedRESULTS:people762023%significantp<0001geometricmeanGM445103012589followed84211631193097ratehealthsocialconvenience8111neversmokedpreviouslyCONCLUSIONS:Howeverfemalepopulationvastmajorityadditionfrequencyc-smokerConsequentlydecreaseincreaseThereforehigherindicatetakenicotineaddictedothersDifferenceseffectsSouthKorea

Similar Articles

Cited By