4.5 Article

Time to First Cigarette after Waking Predicts Cotinine Levels

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 18, 期 12, 页码 3415-3420

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0737

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services, USPHS [CA68384, CA17613, CA104231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is wide variability in cotinine levels per cigarette smoked. We hypothesized that in addition to smoking frequency, other behavioral measures of nicotine dependence, such as the time to first cigarette after waking, are associated with cotinine levels. To test this hypothesis, we measured plasma and urinary cotinine in a community-based study of 252 black and white daily cigarette smokers. Among one pack per day smokers, plasma cotinine levels varied from 16 to 1,180 ng/mL, a 74-fold difference. Two nicotine dependence phenotypes were discerned by time after waking. Subjects in the low dependent phenotype smoked >30 minutes after waking and nearly all smoked <= 20 cigarettes per day. Cotinine levels increased linearly with cigarette consumption in this group. Subjects in the high dependent phenotype smoked <= 30 minutes after waking but had a wide range in the frequency of daily cigarettes (6-70). Compared with the low dependent phenotype, there were relatively small differences in cotinine by cigarette frequency with evidence of a plateau effect in heavy smokers (similar to 30). After adjusting for cigarette frequency, the levels of cotinine by time to first cigarette were as follows: <= 5 minutes, 437 [95% confidence limits (CL), 380-494]; 6 to 30 minutes, 352 (95% CL, 291-413), 31 to 60 minutes, 229 (95% CL, 140-317), and >60 minutes, 215 (95% CL, 110-321). Similar findings were observed for urinary cotinine. These findings suggest that the time to first cigarette is a strong predictor of nicotine uptake and should be considered in the design of smoking interventions. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(12):3415-20)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据