Neal L Benowitz1,2, Gideon St Helen1,2, Natalie Nardone1, Lisa Sanderson Cox3, Peyton Jacob2,4. 1. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 2. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas Medical School, Kansas City, KS. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Accurate measurement of nicotine exposure from cigarette smoke is important in studying disease risk and level of dependence. Urine total nicotine equivalents, the molar sum of nicotine and six metabolites (NE7), accounts for more than 90% of a nicotine dose and is independent of individual metabolic differences. However, measuring NE7 is technically difficult and costly. We compared NE7, the gold standard of nicotine intake, with different combinations of fewer urinary nicotine metabolites. We also examined the impact of individual differences in nicotine metabolic rate, sex, and race on strength of association with NE7. METHODS: Urine samples from 796 daily smokers, who participated across five clinical studies, were assayed for nicotine and/or metabolites. Associations with NE7 were assessed by regression and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Overall, the molar sum of urine [cotinine + 3'-hydroxycotinine (3HC)] (NE2) and [nicotine + cotinine + 3HC] (NE3) were strongly correlated with NE7 (r = .97 and .99, respectively). However, in slow metabolizers NE2 was less predictive of NE7, whereas NE3 was equally robust. Urine total cotinine was also strongly correlated with NE7 (r = .87). CONCLUSIONS: Urine NE3 is a robust biomarker of daily nicotine intake, independently of individual metabolic differences, whereas NE2 is less accurate in slow metabolizers. Our findings inform the selection of more rigorous and cost-effective measures to assess nicotine exposure in tobacco research studies. IMPLICATIONS: The molar sum of urine total nicotine, cotinine and 3HC (NE3) is a robust biomarker of daily nicotine intake, independently of individual metabolic differences, and performs as well as measuring seven nicotine metabolites (NE7). The sum of cotinine and 3HC (NE2) is less accurate in slow metabolizers. Our findings inform the selection of more rigorous and cost-effective measures to assess nicotine exposure in tobacco research studies.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate measurement of nicotine exposure from cigarette smoke is important in studying disease risk and level of dependence. Urine total nicotine equivalents, the molar sum of nicotine and six metabolites (NE7), accounts for more than 90% of a nicotine dose and is independent of individual metabolic differences. However, measuring NE7 is technically difficult and costly. We compared NE7, the gold standard of nicotine intake, with different combinations of fewer urinary nicotine metabolites. We also examined the impact of individual differences in nicotine metabolic rate, sex, and race on strength of association with NE7. METHODS: Urine samples from 796 daily smokers, who participated across five clinical studies, were assayed for nicotine and/or metabolites. Associations with NE7 were assessed by regression and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Overall, the molar sum of urine [cotinine + 3'-hydroxycotinine (3HC)] (NE2) and [nicotine + cotinine + 3HC] (NE3) were strongly correlated with NE7 (r = .97 and .99, respectively). However, in slow metabolizers NE2 was less predictive of NE7, whereas NE3 was equally robust. Urine total cotinine was also strongly correlated with NE7 (r = .87). CONCLUSIONS: Urine NE3 is a robust biomarker of daily nicotine intake, independently of individual metabolic differences, whereas NE2 is less accurate in slow metabolizers. Our findings inform the selection of more rigorous and cost-effective measures to assess nicotine exposure in tobacco research studies. IMPLICATIONS: The molar sum of urine total nicotine, cotinine and 3HC (NE3) is a robust biomarker of daily nicotine intake, independently of individual metabolic differences, and performs as well as measuring seven nicotine metabolites (NE7). The sum of cotinine and 3HC (NE2) is less accurate in slow metabolizers. Our findings inform the selection of more rigorous and cost-effective measures to assess nicotine exposure in tobacco research studies.
Authors: Lisa Sanderson Cox; Nicole L Nollen; Matthew S Mayo; Won S Choi; Babalola Faseru; Neal L Benowitz; Rachel F Tyndale; Kolawole S Okuyemi; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; Gary E Swan; Peyton Jacob; Christina N Lessov-Schlaggar; Rachel F Tyndale Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Lanqing Wang; John T Bernert; Neal L Benowitz; June Feng; Peyton Jacob; Ernest McGahee; Samuel P Caudill; Gerhard Scherer; Max Scherer; Nikola Pluym; Mira V Doig; Kirk Newland; Sharon E Murphy; Nicolas J Caron; Lane C Sander; Makiko Shimizu; Hiroshi Yamazaki; Sung Kim; Loralie J Langman; Jeanita S Pritchett; Lorna T Sniegoski; Yao Li; Benjamin C Blount; James L Pirkle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Catherine A Wassenaar; David V Conti; Soma Das; Peixian Chen; Edwin H Cook; Mark J Ratain; Neal L Benowitz; Rachel F Tyndale Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Gideon St Helen; Maria Novalen; Daniel F Heitjan; Delia Dempsey; Peyton Jacob; Adel Aziziyeh; Victoria C Wing; Tony P George; Rachel F Tyndale; Neal L Benowitz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ellen M McDonagh; Catherine Wassenaar; Sean P David; Rachel F Tyndale; Russ B Altman; Michelle Whirl-Carrillo; Teri E Klein Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Andy Z X Zhu; Caroline C Renner; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Gary E Swan; Caryn Lerman; Neal L Benowitz; Rachel F Tyndale Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Dana M Carroll; Sharon E Murphy; Neal L Benowitz; Andrew A Strasser; Michael Kotlyar; Stephen S Hecht; Steve G Carmella; Francis J McClernon; Lauren R Pacek; Sarah S Dermody; Ryan G Vandrey; Eric C Donny; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rebecca J Evans-Polce; Danielle M Smith; Philip Veliz; Carol J Boyd; Sean Esteban McCabe Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Jiyeon Yang; Shervin Hashemi; Wonseok Han; Yoojin Song; Youngwook Lim Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrew W Bergen; Christopher S McMahan; Stephen McGee; Carolyn M Ervin; Hilary A Tindle; Loïc Le Marchand; Sharon E Murphy; Daniel O Stram; Yesha M Patel; Sungshim L Park; James W Baurley Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 4.244