Conclusions:Both urine cotinine and NNAL are sensitive and specific biomarkers for discriminating the source of tobacco smoke exposure. Cotinine is the best overall discriminator when biomarkers are measured while a person has ongoing exposure to tobacco smoke. NNAL because of its long half-life would be particularly useful when there is a delay between exposure and biomarker measurement. The NNAL/cotinine ratio provides similar sensitivity but poorer specificity at discriminating passive versus active smokers when compared with NNAL alone. IntroductionBiomarkers are useful in assessing both active and passive smokers' exposure to tobacco smoke. Self-reported exposure such as cigarettes smoked per day by active smokers and hours per day exposed to secondhand smoke (SHS) in passive smokers is imprecise. Exposure patterns differ significantly from person to person due to differences in how cigarettes are smoked, differences in tobacco products, room ventilation, proximity of smokers to nonsmokers, and many other environmental factors (N. L. Benowitz, 1996).Biomarkers are used to discriminate active from passive smokers in epidemiological studies, population surveillance of tobacco use, and research on the health risks of active and passive smoking. Determination of optimal biomarker cutoff Abstract Objectives: Cotinine is the most widely used biomarker to distinguish active versus passive smoking. However, there is an overlap in cotinine levels when comparing light or occasional smokers versus heavily exposed passive smokers. 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) is a tobacco-specific nitrosamine measurable in urine with a much longer half-life than cotinine. The aim of the study was to determine optimal cutoff points to discriminate active versus passive smokers and to compare sensitivity and specificity for the use of cotinine, NNAL, and the ratio of the NNAL/cotinine in urine.Methods: Cotinine and NNAL were measured in urine of 373 active smokers and 228 passive smokers.Results: Geometric mean cotinine levels were 2.03 ng/ml (interquartile interval: 0.43-8.60) and 1,043 ng/ml (658-2,251) and NNAL levels were 5.80 pg/ml (2.28-15.4) and 165 pg/ml (90.8-360) pg/ml in passive and active smokers, respectively. NNAL/cotinine ratio in urine was significantly higher for passive smokers when compared with active smokers (2.85 vs. 0.16, p < .01). The receiver operating characteristics analysis determined optimal cutoff points to discriminate passive versus active smokers: 31.5 ng/ml for cotinine (sensitivity: 97.1% and specificity: 93.9%), 47.3 pg/ml for NNAL (87.4% and 96.5%), and 0.74 × 10 −3 for NNAL/cotinine ratio (97.3% and 87.3%).

4-(Methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) is tobacco specific and has a longer half-life than other tobacco biomarkers studied thus far. An accurate measurement of the NNAL half-life is important for optimal use to assess exposure to tobacco smoke. We determined the half-life of NNAL in urine in eight daily smokers on a clinical research ward and in five occasional smokers in a real-life environment. Total NNAL in urine was monitored for 14 days in daily smokers after stopping smoking and for up to 60 days in occasional smokers. The average half-life for the terminal phase in the daily smoker group using a two-compartmental body model was 10.3 days (beta phase), and using a noncompartmental model, it was 9.1 days. In the occasional group, these values were 17.6 and 16.0 days, respectively. The alpha-phase half-lives were 14.3 and 27.8 hours for the two groups, respectively. The inter-subject coefficient of variation of the NNAL terminal half-life ranged from 14% to 30%, and the intra-subject coefficient of variation ranged from 3% to 18%. There was very good agreement between the plasma and urinary halflives in two subjects with plasma analyses: 7.4 versus 7.9 days and 9.2 versus 10.7 days. Mean renal clearance of NNAL was 13 ± 2.3 mL/min. The terminal half-life of NNAL of 10 to 18 days indicates that this biomarker can be used to detect tobacco smoke exposure for 6 to 12 weeks after cessation of exposure and requires a similar time to assess the steady levels of NNAL after switching from one tobacco product to another. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(12):3421-5)

The results support the notion that regulation of little cigars is appropriate in light of public health considerations.

Background There has been an increase in the use of cigarillos in the US. People who smoke cigarillos typically also regularly smoke cigarettes (dual users). Methods We compared puffing topography, biomarkers of acute exposure [exhaled carbon monoxide (COex) and plasma nicotine] and physiologic effects from usual brand cigarette and Black & Mild cigarillo smoking in dual users (N=23) in two laboratory sessions. Results Participants (21 men) smoked an average of 17.5 cigarettes/day. Cigarillo consumption varied widely from as few as 1/week to daily. Participants were highly nicotine dependent (average FTND score: 6.3). There were statistically significant differences in smoking behavior between cigarette and cigarillo smoking in time to smoke, number of puffs, and total puff volume (all P<0.001). Average puff duration, interpuff interval average puff volume, and puff velocity did not differ between cigarettes and cigarillos. Nicotine boost was similar after both cigarettes and cigarillos. COex boost was significantly greater after cigarillo smoking compared to cigarette smoking (P<0.001). Conclusions The smoking pattern and exposure profile indicate that dual users inhale cigarillo smoke just as they inhale cigarette smoke thereby exposing themselves to considerable amounts of nicotine and other components of tobacco smoke. COex exposure results imply that cigarillo smoking may be associated with higher exposure to smoke-delivered volatile components of mainstream cigarillo smoke including carcinogens when compared to cigarettes. Impact The findings that cigarillos and cigarettes are smoked similarly in dual users are relevant to health and regulatory considerations on cigar products.

After comparing results of three prenatal substance use screening tools with biochemical verification, two were found to have satisfactorily high sensitivity and the third had greater specificity.