Brian A Primack1, Mary V Carroll2, Patricia M Weiss3, Alan L Shihadeh4, Ariel Shensa1, Steven T Farley1, Michael J Fine5, Thomas Eissenberg6, Smita Nayak7. 1. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Squirrel Hill Health Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Library System, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 5. VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 7. Swedish Center for Research and Innovation, Swedish Health Services, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) is an emerging trend worldwide. To inform public health policy and educational programming, we systematically reviewed the biomedical literature to compute the inhaled smoke volume, nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide (CO) associated with a single WTS session and a single cigarette. METHODS: We searched seven biomedical bibliographic databases for controlled laboratory or natural environment studies designed to mimic human tobacco consumption. Included studies quantified the mainstream smoke of a single cigarette and/or single WTS session for smoke volume, nicotine, tar, and/or CO. We conducted meta-analyses to calculate summary estimates for the inhalation of each unique substance for each mode of tobacco consumption. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using chi-squared and I-squared statistics. RESULTS: Sufficient data from 17 studies were available to derive pooled estimates for inhalation of each exposure via each smoking method. Two researchers working independently abstracted measurement of smoke volume in liters, and nicotine, tar, and CO in milligrams. All numbers included in meta-analyses matched precisely between the two researchers (100% agreement, Cohen's k=1.00). Whereas one WTS session was associated with 74.1 liters of smoke inhalation (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.2, 110.0), one cigarette was associated with 0.6 liters of smoke (95% CI 0.5, 0.7). One WTS session was also associated with higher levels of nicotine, tar, and CO. CONCLUSIONS: One WTS session consistently exposed users to larger smoke volumes and higher levels of tobacco toxicants compared with one cigarette. These computed estimates may be valuable to emphasize in prevention programming.
OBJECTIVE: Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) is an emerging trend worldwide. To inform public health policy and educational programming, we systematically reviewed the biomedical literature to compute the inhaled smoke volume, nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide (CO) associated with a single WTS session and a single cigarette. METHODS: We searched seven biomedical bibliographic databases for controlled laboratory or natural environment studies designed to mimic humantobacco consumption. Included studies quantified the mainstream smoke of a single cigarette and/or single WTS session for smoke volume, nicotine, tar, and/or CO. We conducted meta-analyses to calculate summary estimates for the inhalation of each unique substance for each mode of tobacco consumption. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using chi-squared and I-squared statistics. RESULTS: Sufficient data from 17 studies were available to derive pooled estimates for inhalation of each exposure via each smoking method. Two researchers working independently abstracted measurement of smoke volume in liters, and nicotine, tar, and CO in milligrams. All numbers included in meta-analyses matched precisely between the two researchers (100% agreement, Cohen's k=1.00). Whereas one WTS session was associated with 74.1 liters of smoke inhalation (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.2, 110.0), one cigarette was associated with 0.6 liters of smoke (95% CI 0.5, 0.7). One WTS session was also associated with higher levels of nicotine, tar, and CO. CONCLUSIONS: One WTS session consistently exposed users to larger smoke volumes and higher levels of tobacco toxicants compared with one cigarette. These computed estimates may be valuable to emphasize in prevention programming.
Authors: Brian A Primack; Ariel Shensa; Kevin H Kim; Mary V Carroll; Mary T Hoban; E Victor Leino; Thomas Eissenberg; Kathleen H Dachille; Michael J Fine Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-05-28 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Melissa D Blank; Caroline O Cobb; Barbara Kilgalen; Janet Austin; Michael F Weaver; Alan Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jens Schubert; Jürgen Hahn; Gerhard Dettbarn; Albrecht Seidel; Andreas Luch; Thomas G Schulz Journal: Toxicol Lett Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 4.372
Authors: Jaime E Sidani; Ariel Shensa; Maharsi R Naidu; Jonathan G Yabes; Brian A Primack Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Eva Sharma; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Kathryn C Edwards; Michael J Halenar; Kristie A Taylor; Karin A Kasza; Hannah Day; Hoda T Hammad; Gabriella Anic; Jean Limpert; Lisa D Gardner; Nicolette Borek; Heather L Kimmel; Wilson M Compton; Andrew Hyland; Cassandra A Stanton Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Nada O F Kassem; Noura O Kassem; Sandy Liles; Sheila R Jackson; Dale A Chatfield; Peyton Jacob; Neal L Benowitz; Melbourne F Hovell Journal: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Nicole L Nollen; Matthew S Mayo; Lauren Clark; Lisa Sanderson Cox; Samir S Khariwala; Kim Pulvers; Neal L Benowitz; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Mohammad Ebrahimi Kalan; Raed Bahelah; Zoran Bursac; Ziyad Ben Taleb; Joseph R DiFranza; Malak Tleis; Rima Nakkash; Rime Jebai; Mohammad Masudul Alam; Miguel Ángel Cano; Matthew T Sutherland; Kristopher Fenni; Taghrid Asfar; Thomas Eissenberg; Kenneth D Ward; Wasim Maziak Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Laura Stroud; Erika Werner; Kristen Matteson; Michael Carey; Gideon St Helen; Thomas Eissenberg; Lori A J Scott-Sheldon Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 7.552