INTRODUCTION: Oral fluid collection is noninvasive and easily observed making it an attractive matrix for objectively determining smoking status. Despite large intersubject variability, cotinine oral fluid concentrations correlate with cigarettes smoked per day (CPD). Few studies, however, assessed nicotine markers in oral fluid other than cotinine; other markers might improve smoking status assessment and/or time of last cigarette. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Smoking histories and oral fluid specimens were collected from nontreatment-seeking light (1-10 CPD) and heavy smokers (greater than 10 CPD) and from environmentally exposed and nonexposed nonsmokers who provided written informed consent for this Institutional Review Board-approved study. Nicotine, cotinine, hydroxycotinine (OH-cotinine), and norcotinine oral fluid concentrations were quantified by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Comparison of 1, 3, and 10 ng/mL oral fluid liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry cutoffs demonstrated that 10-ng/mL cutoffs performed optimally for cotinine, OH-cotinine, nicotine, and norcotinine identifying 98%, 97%, 88%, and 15% of self-reported smokers; 1% nonsmokers had greater than 10 ng/mL cotinine. No self-reported nonsmoker had greater than 10 ng/mL OH-cotinine, nicotine, or norcotinine. Norcotinine was only identified in smokers' oral fluid. Oral fluid nicotine, cotinine, and nicotine/cotinine ratios were correlated with time of last smoking (r = -0.53, -0.23, and -0.51; P < 0.05) and CPD (r = 0.35, 0.26, and 0.33; P < 0.01), respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: OH-cotinine performed slightly better than cotinine for distinguishing smokers from nonsmokers and should be considered as an additional oral fluid smoking indicator. Further research is required to determine if oral fluid norcotinine is a marker for distinguishing light and heavy smokers. Moderate correlations suggest nicotine, cotinine, and nicotine/cotinine ratios may be useful for determining smoking recency in "spot samples" collected during nicotine cessation treatment.
INTRODUCTION: Oral fluid collection is noninvasive and easily observed making it an attractive matrix for objectively determining smoking status. Despite large intersubject variability, cotinine oral fluid concentrations correlate with cigarettes smoked per day (CPD). Few studies, however, assessed nicotine markers in oral fluid other than cotinine; other markers might improve smoking status assessment and/or time of last cigarette. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Smoking histories and oral fluid specimens were collected from nontreatment-seeking light (1-10 CPD) and heavy smokers (greater than 10 CPD) and from environmentally exposed and nonexposed nonsmokers who provided written informed consent for this Institutional Review Board-approved study. Nicotine, cotinine, hydroxycotinine (OH-cotinine), and norcotinine oral fluid concentrations were quantified by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Comparison of 1, 3, and 10 ng/mL oral fluid liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry cutoffs demonstrated that 10-ng/mL cutoffs performed optimally for cotinine, OH-cotinine, nicotine, and norcotinine identifying 98%, 97%, 88%, and 15% of self-reported smokers; 1% nonsmokers had greater than 10 ng/mL cotinine. No self-reported nonsmoker had greater than 10 ng/mL OH-cotinine, nicotine, or norcotinine. Norcotinine was only identified in smokers' oral fluid. Oral fluid nicotine, cotinine, and nicotine/cotinine ratios were correlated with time of last smoking (r = -0.53, -0.23, and -0.51; P < 0.05) and CPD (r = 0.35, 0.26, and 0.33; P < 0.01), respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:OH-cotinine performed slightly better than cotinine for distinguishing smokers from nonsmokers and should be considered as an additional oral fluid smoking indicator. Further research is required to determine if oral fluid norcotinine is a marker for distinguishing light and heavy smokers. Moderate correlations suggest nicotine, cotinine, and nicotine/cotinine ratios may be useful for determining smoking recency in "spot samples" collected during nicotine cessation treatment.
Authors: Maritta S Jaakkola; Jiemin Ma; Gonghuan Yang; Ming Feng Chin; Neal L Benowitz; Marion Ceraso; Jonathan M Samet Journal: Prev Med Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Gina F Marrone; Diaa M Shakleya; Karl B Scheidweiler; Edward G Singleton; Marilyn A Huestis; Stephen J Heishman Journal: Addiction Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Eleanor I Miller; Hye-Ryun K Norris; Douglas E Rollins; Stephen T Tiffany; Christine M Moore; Michael J Vincent; Alpana Agrawal; Diana G Wilkins Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; John T Bernert; Jonathan Foulds; Stephen S Hecht; Peyton Jacob; Martin J Jarvis; Anne Joseph; Cheryl Oncken; Megan E Piper Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Haidy K Giratallah; Meghan J Chenoweth; Newton Addo; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Lisa Sanderson Cox; Caryn Lerman; Tony P George; Neal L Benowitz; Rachel F Tyndale Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Hernâni Marques; Pedro Cruz-Vicente; Tiago Rosado; Mário Barroso; Luís A Passarinha; Eugenia Gallardo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jeffrey L Ebersole; Radhakrishnan Nagarajan; David Akers; Craig S Miller Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 5.293