Research paper
 
CC-BY-NC 4.0
 
 

Do brand characteristics contribute significantly to variability in toxicant exposure in smokers? Data from NHANES 2007-2012

Richard J O'Connor 1  ,  
 
1
Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA
2
University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2017;3(February):4
Publish date: 2017-02-02
Submission date: 2016-05-25
Final revision date: 2016-12-13
Acceptance date: 2016-12-20
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
 
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
This study sought to quantify the difference in serum cotinine and other biomarkers indicative of cigarette smoking in current US cigarette smokers attributable to brand level versus individual level factors.

Methods:
A total of 2,558 daily exclusive smokers, 20 years and older in the United States participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2007-2012 and provided biospecimens and cigarette brand information. Exposure biomarkers were serum cotinine, and urinary NNAL, PAHs, and heavy metals. Adjustments were made for demographics, cigarettes per day, brand, tar group (≤ 6mg, >6-15mg, >15mg), and menthol.

Results:
The most commonly reported brands of US cigarettes were Marlboro, Newport, Camel, and Pall Mall. Cotinine levels differed by age (p=0.0065), race (p<0.0001), and cigarettes smoked per day (p<0.0001) but not brand, tar or menthol. Brand family was significantly associated with urinary levels of NNAL, 1HP, HFs, and HPHs. Person-level factors accounted for some of these differences. No consistent differences in metal exposure by brand were noted. Overall, brand information accounted for 2-8% of variance depending on the marker. Together, age, sex, race, education, and cigarettes smoked per day accounted for 20% in variance in cotinine levels, and adding the brand information (brand family, tar group, menthol) to the model accounted for an additional 0.5% (p<0.0948).

Conclusions:
Brand to brand differences seen in serum cotinine levels and other biomarkers indicative of cigarette smoking between the top US cigarette brands from 2007-2012 are primarily driven by individual differences among smokers, and less by differences among products.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Richard J O'Connor   
Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, 14263 Buffalo, NY, United States
 
REFERENCES (47):
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2014. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2014. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf (accessed February 2016).
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2010. Available at: http://whyquit.com/CDC/SGR_2010_How_Tobacco_Smoke_Causes_Disease.pdf (accessed February 2016.
3. National Toxicology Program. Introduction to the Report on Carcinogens. Thirteenth Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program; 2014:1-7.
4. National Cancer Institute. Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 13. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 2001. Available at: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/TCRB/monographs/13/m13_complete.pdf. (accessed February 2016).
5. Fidler JA, Jarvis MJ, Mindell J, West R. Nicotine Intake in Cigarette Smokers in England: Distribution and Demographic Correlates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(12): 3331-3336. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0296.
6. Jarvis MJ, Giovino GA, O'Connor RJ, et al. Variation in nicotine intake among U.S. cigarette smokers during the past 25 years: evidence from NHANES surveys. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2014;16(12):1620-1628. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu120.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cotinine. National Biomonitoring Program. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/Cotinine_BiomonitoringSummary.html. (accessed February 2016).
8. Kyerematen GA, Morgan ML, Chattopadhyay B, et al. Disposition of nicotine and eight metabolites in smokers and nonsmokers: identification of two metabolites that are longer lived than cotinine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990;48:641-651.
9. Jacob P, Yu L, Wilson M, Benowitz NL. Selected ion monitoring method for determination of nicotine, cotinine and deuterium-labeled analogs: absence of an isotope effect in the clearance of (S)-nicotine-3',3'-d2 in humans. Biol Mass Spec. 1991;20:247-252.
10. Armitage AK, Dollery CT, George CF, Houseman TH, Lewis PJ, Turner DM. Absorption and metabolism of nicotine from cigarettes. Br Med J. 1975;4:313-316. PMCID: PMC1675218
11. Hecht SS, Hoffmann D. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, an important group of carcinogens in tobacco and tobacco smoke. Carcinogenesis. 1988;9(6):875-884.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NNAL (4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol). National Biomonitoring Program. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/NNAL_FactSheet.html (accessed February 2016).
13. National Toxicology Program. N-Nitrosamines: 15 Listings. Report on Carcinogens. Thirteenth Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program; 2014:1-23.
14. St. Helen G, Goniewicz ML, Dempsey D, et al. Exposure and Kinetics of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Cigarette Smokers. Chem Res Toxicol. 2012;25(4):952–964. doi: 10.1021/tx300043k.
15. R. Steven Pappas, Mark R. Fresquez, Clifford H. Watson. Cigarette smoke cadmium breakthrough from traditional filters: implications for exposure. J Anal Toxicol. 2015;39(1):45-51. doi: 10.1093/jat/bku115
16. Pappas RS, Fresquez MR, Martone N, Watson CH. Toxic metal concentrations in mainstream smoke from cigarettes available in the USA. J Anal Toxicol. 2014;38(4):204-211. doi: 10.1093/jat/bku013.
17. Caruso RV, O'Connor RJ, Stephens WE, et al. Toxic metal concentrations in cigarettes obtained from U.S. smokers in 2009: results from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) United States survey cohort. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013; 11(1):202-217. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110100202
18. Afridi HI, Talpur FN, Kazi TG, Brabazon D. Effect of Trace and Toxic Elements of Different Brands of Cigarettes on the Essential Elemental Status of Irish Referent and Diabetic Mellitus Consumers. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2015; 167(2):209-224. doi: 10.1007/s12011-015-0308-5.
19. Matsunaga Y, Agaku IT, Vardavas CI. The association between cigarette rod length, slim design, and blood cadmium levels among U.S. smokers: NHANES 1999-2010. Prev Med. 2014;65:87-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.021.
20. Tellez-Plaza M, Navas-Acien A, Caldwell KL, et al. Reduction in cadmium exposure in the United States population, 1988-2008: the contribution of declining smoking rates. Environ Health Perspect. 2012; 120(2):204-209. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104020.
21. Cummings KM, Hyland A, Bansal MA, et al. What do marlboro lights smokers know about low-tar cigarettes? Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(Suppl 3):S323-S332.
22. Kozlowski LT, Goldberg ME, Yost BA, et al. Smokers’ misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 15(1):9-16. PMID: 9651633
23. Cummings KM, Hyland A, Pechacek TF, et al. Comparison of recent trends in adolescent and adult cigarette smoking behavior and brand preferences. Tob Control. 1997; 6(Suppl 2):S31-S37. doi: 10.1136/tc.6.suppl_2.S31.
24. Sharma A, Fix BV, Delnevo C, et al. Trends in market share of leading cigarette brands in the USA: national survey on drug use and health 2002-2013. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e008813. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008813.
25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco Brand Preferences. Smoking & Tobacco Use. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/brand_preference/. (accessed February 2016).
26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Brand Preference Among Middle and High School Students Who Are Established Smokers --- United States, 2004 and 2006. MMWR. 2009:58(05); 112-115.
27. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: “Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents” in Tobacco Products as Used in Section 904(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 2011 (January): 1-5.
28. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke: Established List. 2012 (April): 20034-20037.
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. About the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about_nhanes.htm#content. (accessed February 2016).
30. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Biospecimen Program: NHANES III (1988–1994) and NHANES 1999–2014. Vital and Health Statistics Series 2, Number 170. 2015 (July): 1-14.
31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Key concepts About NHANES Survey Design. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/tutorials/nhanes/SurveyDesign/SampleDesign/Info1.htm. (accessed February 2016).
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. NCHS Research Ethics Review Board (ERB) Approval. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/irba98.htm. (accessed February 2016).
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Smoking – Cigarette Use. Available at: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2007-2008/SMQ_E.htm. (accessed February 2016).
34. Cornelius ME, Driezen P, Fong GT, et al. Trends in the Use of Premium and Discount Cigarette Brands: Findings from the ITC US Surveys (2002–2011). Tob Control. 2013; 0:1-6. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051045.
35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Blood and Urine Collection. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_07_08/labcomp_e.pdf. (accessed February 2016).
36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Cotinine – Serum & Total NNAL – Urine. Available at: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2007-2008/COTNAL_E.htm. (accessed February 2016).
37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Metals – Urine. Available at: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2011-2012/UHM_G.htm. (accessed February 2016).
38. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Laboratory Procedures Manual. 2009 (July): 1-897.
39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking & Tobacco Use. Tobacco Industry Marketing. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/marketing/. (accessed February 2016).
40. Jain RB. Trends in serum cotinine concentrations among daily cigarette smokers: data from NHANES 1999-2010. Sci Total Environ. 2014; 472:72-77.
41. Caraballo RS, Giovino GA, Pechacek TF, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in serum cotinine levels of cigarette smokers: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1991. JAMA. 1998; 280(2):135-139.
42. Roethig HJ, Munjal S, Feng S, et al. Population estimates for biomarkers of exposure to cigarette smoke in adult U.S. cigarette smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(10):1216-1225. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntp126.
43. Jones MR, Apelberg BJ, Tellez-Plaza M, et al. Menthol cigarettes, race/ethnicity, and biomarkers of tobacco use in U.S. adults: the 1999-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(2):224-232. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0912.
44. Mendes P, Liang Q, Frost-Pineda K, et al. The relationship between smoking machine derived tar yields and biomarkers of exposure in adult cigarette smokers in the US. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009; 55(1):17-27. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.05.016.
45. World Health Organization. The Scientific Basis of Tobacco Product Regulation: Second Report of a WHO Study Group. WHO Press; 2008: 1-289.
46. Kozlowski LT, O’Connor RJ. Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents. Tob Control. 2002; 11(Suppl 1):i40–i50. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i40.
47. Redner R, White TJ, Bunn JY, Higgins ST Use of High-Nicotine/Tar-Yield (Full-Flavor) Cigarettes and Risk for Nicotine Dependence in Nationally Representative Samples of US Smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Jun;18 (6):1424-30. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv252.
eISSN:2459-3087