Neal L Benowitz1, Katherine M Dains, Delia Dempsey, Brenda Herrera, Lisa Yu, Peyton Jacob. 1. Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Department of Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco, Box 1220, San Francisco, CA 94143-1220, USA. NBenowitz@MedSFGH.ucsf.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Plasma or saliva cotinine concentrations are used widely as biomarkers of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure and have been associated with the risk of SHS-related disease. Concentrations of cotinine and other nicotine metabolites are considerably higher in urine than in plasma or saliva, making chemical analysis easier. In addition, urine is often more convenient to collect in some SHS exposure studies. The optimal use of nicotine metabolites in urine, singly or in combination, with or without correction for urine creatinine concentration, to estimate plasma cotinine concentration with low-level nicotine exposure has not been determined. METHODS: We dosed 36 nonsmokers with 100, 200, or 400 microg deuterium-labeled nicotine (simulating exposure to SHS) by mouth daily for 5 days and then measured plasma and urine cotinine and metabolites at various intervals over 24 hr. RESULTS: A plasma cotinine concentration of 1 ng/ml corresponds on average to a daily intake of 100 microg nicotine. Cotinine concentrations in urine averaged four to five times those in plasma. Correction of urine cotinine for creatinine concentration improved the correlation between urine and plasma cotinine. Measuring multiple cotinine metabolites in urine did not improve the correlation with plasma cotinine, compared with the use of urine cotinine alone. DISCUSSION: Measurement of urine cotinine corrected for creatinine concentration appears to be the best predictor of plasma cotinine.
INTRODUCTION: Plasma or saliva cotinine concentrations are used widely as biomarkers of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure and have been associated with the risk of SHS-related disease. Concentrations of cotinine and other nicotine metabolites are considerably higher in urine than in plasma or saliva, making chemical analysis easier. In addition, urine is often more convenient to collect in some SHS exposure studies. The optimal use of nicotine metabolites in urine, singly or in combination, with or without correction for urine creatinine concentration, to estimate plasma cotinine concentration with low-level nicotine exposure has not been determined. METHODS: We dosed 36 nonsmokers with 100, 200, or 400 microg deuterium-labeled nicotine (simulating exposure to SHS) by mouth daily for 5 days and then measured plasma and urine cotinine and metabolites at various intervals over 24 hr. RESULTS: A plasma cotinine concentration of 1 ng/ml corresponds on average to a daily intake of 100 microg nicotine. Cotinine concentrations in urine averaged four to five times those in plasma. Correction of urine cotinine for creatinine concentration improved the correlation between urine and plasma cotinine. Measuring multiple cotinine metabolites in urine did not improve the correlation with plasma cotinine, compared with the use of urine cotinine alone. DISCUSSION: Measurement of urine cotinine corrected for creatinine concentration appears to be the best predictor of plasma cotinine.
Authors: S S Hecht; S G Carmella; M Chen; J F Dor Koch; A T Miller; S E Murphy; J A Jensen; C L Zimmerman; D K Hatsukami Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1999-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Stephen S Hecht; Sharon E Murphy; Steven G Carmella; Shelby Li; Joni Jensen; Chap Le; Anne M Joseph; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Stephen S Hecht; Steven G Carmella; Sharon E Murphy; William T Riley; Chap Le; Xianghua Luo; Marc Mooney; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: James L Pirkle; John T Bernert; Samuel P Caudill; Connie S Sosnoff; Terry F Pechacek Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; Katherine M Dains; Delia Dempsey; Lisa Yu; Peyton Jacob Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Eric C Donny; Rachel L Denlinger; Jennifer W Tidey; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Neal L Benowitz; Ryan G Vandrey; Mustafa al'Absi; Steven G Carmella; Paul M Cinciripini; Sarah S Dermody; David J Drobes; Stephen S Hecht; Joni Jensen; Tonya Lane; Chap T Le; F Joseph McClernon; Ivan D Montoya; Sharon E Murphy; Jason D Robinson; Maxine L Stitzer; Andrew A Strasser; Hilary Tindle; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carolyn S Calfee; Michael A Matthay; Mark D Eisner; Neal Benowitz; Mariah Call; Jean-François Pittet; Mitchell J Cohen Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 21.405
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: Taraneh Taghavi; Christopher A Arger; Sarah H Heil; Stephen T Higgins; Rachel F Tyndale Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Melissa Mercincavage; Valentina Souprountchouk; Kathy Z Tang; Rachel L Dumont; E Paul Wileyto; Steven G Carmella; Stephen S Hecht; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 4.254