AIMS: To reassess saliva cotinine cut-points to discriminate smoking status. Cotinine cut-points that are in use were derived from relatively small samples of smokers and non-smokers 20 or more years ago. It is possible that optimal cut-points may have changed as prevalence and exposure to passive smoking have declined. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of the general population, with assessment of self-reported smoking and saliva cotinine. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 58 791 respondents aged 4 years and older in the Health Survey for England for the years 1996-2004 who provided valid saliva cotinine specimens. MEASURES: Saliva cotinine concentrations, demographic variables, self-reported smoking, presence or absence of smoking in the home, a composite index of social disadvantage derived from occupation, housing tenure and access to a car. FINDINGS: A cut-point of 12 ng/ml performed best overall, with specificity of 96.9% and sensitivity of 96.7% in discriminating confirmed cigarette smokers from never regular smokers. This cut-point also identified correctly 95.8% of children aged 8-15 years smoking six or more cigarettes a week. There was evidence of substantial misreport in claimed ex-smokers, especially adolescents (specificity 72.3%) and young adults aged 16-24 years (77.5%). Optimal cut-points varied by presence (18 ng/ml) or absence (5 ng/ml) of smoking in the home, and there was a gradient from 8 ng/ml to 18 ng/ml with increasing social disadvantage. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of non-smokers' exposure to other people's tobacco smoke is the principal factor driving optimal cotinine cut-points. A cut-point of 12 ng/ml can be recommended for general use across the whole age range, although different cut-points may be appropriate for population subgroups and in societies with differing levels of exposure to secondhand smoke.
AIMS: To reassess saliva cotinine cut-points to discriminate smoking status. Cotinine cut-points that are in use were derived from relatively small samples of smokers and non-smokers 20 or more years ago. It is possible that optimal cut-points may have changed as prevalence and exposure to passive smoking have declined. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of the general population, with assessment of self-reported smoking and saliva cotinine. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 58 791 respondents aged 4 years and older in the Health Survey for England for the years 1996-2004 who provided valid saliva cotinine specimens. MEASURES: Saliva cotinine concentrations, demographic variables, self-reported smoking, presence or absence of smoking in the home, a composite index of social disadvantage derived from occupation, housing tenure and access to a car. FINDINGS: A cut-point of 12 ng/ml performed best overall, with specificity of 96.9% and sensitivity of 96.7% in discriminating confirmed cigarette smokers from never regular smokers. This cut-point also identified correctly 95.8% of children aged 8-15 years smoking six or more cigarettes a week. There was evidence of substantial misreport in claimed ex-smokers, especially adolescents (specificity 72.3%) and young adults aged 16-24 years (77.5%). Optimal cut-points varied by presence (18 ng/ml) or absence (5 ng/ml) of smoking in the home, and there was a gradient from 8 ng/ml to 18 ng/ml with increasing social disadvantage. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of non-smokers' exposure to other people's tobacco smoke is the principal factor driving optimal cotinine cut-points. A cut-point of 12 ng/ml can be recommended for general use across the whole age range, although different cut-points may be appropriate for population subgroups and in societies with differing levels of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Authors: Lisa M Gatzke-Kopp; Michael T Willoughby; Siri M Warkentien; Thomas O'Connor; Douglas A Granger; Clancy Blair Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: J Foulds; A Hobkirk; E Wasserman; J Richie; S Veldheer; N M Krebs; L Reinhart; J Muscat Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jay L Zweier; Mahmoud T Shalaan; Alexandre Samouilov; Ibrahim G Saleh; Mohamed A El-Mahdy Journal: Inhal Toxicol Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Suzaynn F Schick; Benjamin C Blount; Peyton Jacob; Najat A Saliba; John T Bernert; Ahmad El Hellani; Peter Jatlow; R Steven Pappas; Lanqing Wang; Jonathan Foulds; Arunava Ghosh; Stephen S Hecht; John C Gomez; Jessica R Martin; Clementina Mesaros; Sanjay Srivastava; Gideon St Helen; Robert Tarran; Pawel K Lorkiewicz; Ian A Blair; Heather L Kimmel; Claire M Doerschuk; Neal L Benowitz; Aruni Bhatnagar Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: B J Jefferis; D A Lawlor; S Ebrahim; S G Wannamethee; C Feyerabend; M Doig; L McMeekin; D G Cook; P H Whincup Journal: Heart Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Robyn M Amos-Kroohs; Michael T Williams; Amanda A Braun; Devon L Graham; Cynthia L Webb; Todd S Birtles; Robert M Greene; Charles V Vorhees; M Michele Pisano Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: B J Jefferis; G D O Lowe; P Welsh; A Rumley; D A Lawlor; S Ebrahim; C Carson; M Doig; C Feyerabend; L McMeekin; S G Wannamethee; D G Cook; P H Whincup Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 5.162