2015
DOI: 10.3109/08958378.2015.1013228
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Study of cardiovascular disease biomarkers among tobacco consumers, part 1: biomarkers of exposure

Abstract: A study was conducted to evaluate biomarkers of biological effect and physiological assessments related to cardiovascular disease (CVD) among adult male cigarette smokers (SMK), moist snuff consumers (MSC) and non-consumers of tobacco (NTC). Additionally, biomarkers of tobacco and tobacco smoke exposure (BoE) were measured in spot urines and are reported here. Except for the BoE to nicotine and NNK, BoE were generally greater in SMK compared with MSC, and BoE were generally not different in comparisons of MSC … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
19
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
4
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It does, however, carry the risk of exposure to nicotine, heavy metals, and contaminating microorganisms and their products, with the levels of blood and urine nicotine/cotinine being comparable to those of smokers [81][82][83][84][85]. Although studies to date are somewhat limited, those that have been reported did not, however, detect an association between usage of snuff and risk of development of either ACPApositive or ACPA-negative RA, or for increased disease severity [86][87][88].…”
Section: Smokeless Tobacco (Snuff)mentioning
confidence: 72%
“…It does, however, carry the risk of exposure to nicotine, heavy metals, and contaminating microorganisms and their products, with the levels of blood and urine nicotine/cotinine being comparable to those of smokers [81][82][83][84][85]. Although studies to date are somewhat limited, those that have been reported did not, however, detect an association between usage of snuff and risk of development of either ACPApositive or ACPA-negative RA, or for increased disease severity [86][87][88].…”
Section: Smokeless Tobacco (Snuff)mentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Data set 3: Cross-sectional study of male tobacco consumers and never consumers of tobacco: A single site, cross-sectional study was conducted between September 2008 and February 2009 in the US to evaluate several biomarkers of tobacco exposure and biological effect in exclusive SMK ( n = 60), exclusive moist snuff consumers (MSC, n = 48), and NTC ( n = 60) (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01692353). Details have been reported elsewhere (Campbell et al, 2015 ; Nordskog et al, 2015 ). Briefly, participants were generally healthy males, aged 26–49 years.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…<20 packs of cigarettes, <10 cigars, <10 pipes, and <10 packs/tins of any other smokeless tobacco, lifetime), and ECO ≤5 ppm; NTC had a limited lifetime usage of tobacco products (i.e. lifetime usage having not exceeded: 20 packs of cigarettes, 20 cans or packs of smokeless tobacco, 50 cigars, 50 pipes of tobacco) and ECO ≤5 ppm (Campbell et al, 2015 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several biomarker studies, including those from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco (RJRT), have shown that moist snuff consumers (MSC), although exposed to nicotine and TSNAs, exhibit significantly lower levels of combustion-related biomarkers than smokers, with biomarker levels comparable to those found in the non-tobacco consumers (NTC) (Campbell et al 2015, Prasad et al 2016. Further, several biomarkers that are indicative of the effect of tobacco consumption on the consumers (known as biomarkers of effect) across different biological pathways were not significantly different from NTC.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, several biomarkers that are indicative of the effect of tobacco consumption on the consumers (known as biomarkers of effect) across different biological pathways were not significantly different from NTC. Smokers (SMKs), however, exhibited significant differences in these biomarkers, relative to the consumers of STs and NTC (Campbell et al 2015, Prasad et al 2016.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%