Skip to main content
PMC home page
Taylor & Francis Open Select logoLink to Taylor & Francis Open Select
. 2015 Mar 19;27(3):149–156. doi: 10.3109/08958378.2015.1013228

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

Leanne R Campbell a,*, Buddy G Brown a,*, Bobbette A Jones a, Kristin M Marano b, Michael F Borgerding a
PMCID: PMC4496812  PMID: 25787703

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 and NTC. Results demonstrated that MSC had lower systemic exposures to many harmful and potentially harmful constituents than SMK, which is consistent with epidemiological data that indicate a differential in CVD risk between these groups.

Keywords: Cigarettes, clinical study, CVD, harmful and potentially harmful constituents, moist snuff, spot urines

Background

Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable deaths in USA and significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions. No tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks, and quitting cigarette smoking significantly reduces the risk for serious diseases. Notably, the health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products (Nutt et al., 2014; Zeller et al., 2009).

Adult cardiovascular disease (CVD) includes diseases of the heart and/or vascular system (i.e. blood vessels), including hypertension, atherosclerosis and stroke [World Health Organization (WHO), 2013]. According to a 2008 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during the period between 2000 and 2004, cigarette smoking was associated with ∼128 000 deaths per year from all CVDs, and ∼80 000 deaths from coronary heart disease (CHD) alone in the USA (Adhikari et al., 2008). In addition, in USA, the annual mortality from CHD was the third leading cause of smoking attributable death, following lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (Adhikari et al., 2008).

Data suggest significant increases in risk for CHD and stroke among cigarette smokers compared to never smokers [US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), 2004]. For example, in the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study-II (CPS-II), the CHD and stroke mortality hazard ratios among male cigarette smokers were 1.9 (95% CI: 1.8–2.1) and 1.7 (95% CI: 1.5–2.0), respectively (Thun et al., 2000). Despite the relatively high number of smoking-associated CHD deaths, it is notable that, among cigarette smokers, the relative risks for CVD are lower compared to those associated with lung cancer or COPD (Thun et al., 2000). This is likely due to the complexity of CVD as a chronic progressive disease associated with several risk factors including cigarette smoking, lack of physical activity, poor diet, diabetes, obesity, hypertension and dyslipidemia (Gillespie et al., 2013).

Cigarette smoking likely contributes to the progression of cardiovascular events through increased inflammation, increased platelet activation (i.e. thrombosis), endothelial dysfunction and reduced oxygen supply (Benowitz, 2003; Messner & Bernhard, 2014). Notably, adverse effects of these determinants of cardiovascular events have not been observed in consumers of smokeless tobacco (ST). Based on a study of cardiovascular biomarkers, ST use did not affect inflammation (including C-reactive protein levels), endothelial function, platelet activation, oxidative stress, leukocyte counts, fibrinogen or lipid profiles in a manner similar to cigarette smoking (USDHHS, 2010). That is, these biomarkers, and biomarkers related to these events, were not different in comparisons of ST consumers with individuals who had never used tobacco (USDHHS, 2010).

Not surprisingly then, CVD risk estimates associated with ST use are consistently lower than the CVD risk estimates associated with cigarette smoking (Piano et al., 2010). For example, CHD and stroke mortality hazard ratios from the CPS-II study for male ST users compared with male never tobacco users were 1.26 (95% CI: 1.08–1.47) and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.10–1.79), respectively (Henley et al., 2005). Thus, in accordance with a statement from the American Heart Association (Piano et al., 2010), the risk of CVD among ST users may be increased relative to never tobacco use; however, any risk of CVD associated with ST use is less than that associated with cigarette smoking. It is also notable that in an evaluation of cigarette smokers who switched from cigarette smoking to ST use (also the CPS-II cohort), the relative risks of CHD and stroke were not statistically different from quitting tobacco entirely (Henley et al., 2007).

This study was conducted to evaluate biomarkers of biological effect (measured in blood and urine) and physiological assessments related to CVD among exclusive cigarette smokers (SMK), exclusive moist snuff (i.e. a type of ST) consumers (MSC) and non-consumers of tobacco (NTC). Biomarkers of tobacco and tobacco smoke exposure (BoE) were additionally evaluated and are reported here along with a description of the study design and conduct. Comparisons of biological effect biomarkers and physiological assessments are reported elsewhere (Marano et al., 2015; Nordskog et al., 2015).

Methods

Study design and participants

An age-stratified, cross-sectional study was conducted between September 2008 and February 2009 at a single clinical research unit in Lincoln, NE. The study was managed by Celerion (formerly MDS Pharma Services) (ClinicalTrial.gov; identifier: NCT01692353). The study was approved by the MDS Pharma Services Institutional Review Board and was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice, the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable sections of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR Parts 50, 54 and 56). All participants provided written informed consent at screening and prior to any study procedures being performed. Participants were free to withdraw from the study at any time and were compensated for their time and participation.

Generally healthy male participants, aged 26–49 years (inclusive), were recruited via radio, print ads, Celerion’s website and phone calls to Celerion’s database of smokers residing in Lincoln and Omaha, NE. The target completion for this study was 60 participants per group (SMK, MSC, NTC), and 15 participants per age stratum (26–31, 32–37, 38–43 and 44–49 years), for 180 total participants. SMK had smoked at least 15 cigarettes per day with mainstream “tar” yields >6.0 mg, as measured by the Cambridge Filter Method [Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 2008], for at least 3 years prior to study screening and had expired carbon monoxide (ECO) levels between 10 and 100 parts per million (ppm). During the 6 months prior to study enrollment, SMK were required to have exclusively smoked cigarettes and not to have used any other form of tobacco or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Additionally, SMK had limited lifetime usage of other types of tobacco (i.e. <10 cigars, <10 pipes and <10 packs/tins of ST, lifetime). MSC reported using at least two cans of moist snuff (any cut, any style) per week for at least 3 years prior to study screening and had ECO levels ≤5 ppm. During the 6 months prior to study enrollment, MSC were required to use moist snuff exclusively and not to have used any other form of tobacco or NRT. Additionally, MSC had limited lifetime usage of other types of tobacco (i.e. <20 packs of cigarettes, <10 cigars, <10 pipes and <10 packs/tins of any other ST, lifetime). NTC had limited lifetime usage of tobacco (i.e. <20 packs of cigarettes, <20 cans/packs of any ST, <50 cigars and <50 pipes of tobacco, at time of screening), had never used NRT and had ECO levels ≤5 ppm. All tobacco products used in this study (i.e. study product) were the participants’ usual brand (UB) and were supplied by the subject.

Study conduct

Eligible participants were admitted to the clinic between 12:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Day 1. After Day 1 check-in, participant eligibility was reconfirmed and all participants completed relevant health-related questionnaires, including the American Thoracic Society ATS-DLD-78, the Smoking Cessation Quality of Life (SCQoL, including SF-36v2®), the National Cancer Institute Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ) and a 1-day diary. In addition, SMK completed the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and MSC completed the FTND-ST. Participants were allowed to use their UB tobacco products ad libitum after check-in and before they observed a 45-min tobacco abstention period. This period of abstinence was followed by a “challenge” (i.e. the use of one unit of UB tobacco product), which for SMK was smoking one UB cigarette in the usual manner and for MSC was using a typical portion of UB moist snuff for 30 min. At 15-min post-challenge, blood and urine were collected, and spirometry (SPIRO), ECO and ankle brachial index (ABI) were measured sequentially. At 30-min post-challenge use, flow-mediated dilation (FMD) was measured. For NTC, completion of study questionnaires served as the reference point for collection of the blood and urine, and ECO, ABI and FMD measurements. After challenge and subsequent testing, participants were allowed to use their UB product ad libitum until the start of the overnight tobacco abstinence period, which began at ∼9.00 p.m. Participants were confined overnight. On Day 2, blood and urine were collected, and SPIRO, ECO, ABI, FMD and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) were measured sequentially. Participants were discharged approximately at noon on Day 2. Only Day 1 BoE results are presented here.

Biomarkers and analytical methods

Blood and spot urine were analyzed for various biomarkers using validated analytical methods with appropriate quality controls. The tobacco and tobacco smoke BoE and corresponding analytical methods are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Urinary biomarker analyses were performed at Analytisch Biologisches Forschungslabor (ABF, Munich, Germany), except for creatinine, which was analyzed at Celerion. The blood biomarkers nicotine, cotinine and carboxyhemoglobin were determined at Celerion. For nicotine plus nine metabolites, quantification was performed by modification of the “direct” method (Meger et al., 2002). That is, each nicotine metabolite was converted to an equivalent mass of nicotine using a metabolite-specific molar ratio. Subsequently, converted masses of each metabolite were summed to total nicotine equivalents (NicEq). The analysis for 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1(3-pyridyl)-butanol (NNAL), the urinary biomarker for the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), was performed by the “indirect” method (Byrd & Ogden, 2003). All urine biomarkers were normalized to creatinine to reduce variability resulting from spot urine collection using the conventional creatinine-ratio-normalization technique (i.e. mass per milliliter converted to mass per milligram of creatinine) (Heavner et al., 2006). ECO levels (ppm) were measured using the Micro IV Smokerlyzer® Breath Carbon Monoxide Monitor (Bedfont Scientific Ltd, Haddonfield, NJ).

Table 1. Urinary biomarkers of exposure and bioanalytical methods.

Biomarkera Abbreviation Chemical Constituent Method LLOQ LOD
Nicotine equivalents NicEq Nicotine NA    
 Unconjugated nicotine NIC-U Nicotine LC-MS/MS 10 mg mL−1 5 ng mL−1
 Unconjugated cotinine COT-U Nicotine LC-MS/MS 7.4 ng mL−1 2.5 ng mL−1
 Unconjugated trans-3′-hydroxycotinine OHCOT-U Nicotine LC-MS/MS 12.3 ng mL−1 4.1 ng mL−1
 Nicotine-glucuronide NIC-G Nicotine LC-MS/MS 10 ng mL−1 3 ng mL−1
 Cotinine-glucuronide COT-G Nicotine LC-MS/MS 25 ng mL−1 10 ng mL−1
 Trans-3′-hydroxycotinine-glucuronide OHCOT-G Nicotine LC-MS/MS 21.6 ng mL−1 7.2 ng mL−1
 Cotinine-N-oxide CNO Nicotine LC-MS/MS 10 ng mL−1 4 ng mL−1
 Nicotine-N-oxide NNO Nicotine LC-MS/MS 10 ng mL−1 5 ng mL−1
 Norcotinine NCOT Nicotine LC-MS/MS 10 ng mL−1 3 ng mL−1
 Nornicotine NNIC Nicotine LC-MS/MS 10 ng mL−1 4 ng mL−1
Total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1(3-pyridyl)-butanol NNAL-T NNK LC-MS/MS 5 pg mL−1 2 pg mL−1
 Unconjugated 4-(methylnitrosamino)-  1(3-pyridyl)-butanol NNAL-U NNK LC-MS/MS 5 pg mL−1 2 pg mL−1
 4-(Methylnitrosamino)-1(3-pyridyl)-butanol  glucuronide NNAL-Gb NNK Calculated NA NA
3-Hydroxypropylmercapturic acid 3-HPMA Acrolein LC-MS/MS 20 ng mL−1 6.2 ng mL−1
S-phenylmercapturic acid S-PMA Benzene LC-MS/MS 0.05 ng mL−1 0.03 ng mL−1
Monohydroxybutenylmercapturic acid MHBMA 1,3-Butadiene LC-MS/MS 0.10 ng mL−1 0.03 ng mL−1
3-Hydroxy-1-methylpropyl-mercapturic acid HMPMA Crotonaldehyde LC-MS/MS 52 ng mL−1 17 ng mL−1
total 1-hydroxypyrene 1-OHP-T Pyrene GC-MS/MS 0.01 ng mL−1 0.003 ng mL−1
o-Toluidine o-T o-Toluidine GC-MS 2.5 ng L−1 0.8 ng L−1
2-Aminonaphthalene 2-AN 2-Aminonaphthalene GC-MS 1.7 ng L−1 0.6 ng L−1
3-Aminobiphenyl 3-ABP 3-Aminobiphenyl GC-MS 1.3 ng L−1 0.5 ng L−1
4-Aminobiphenyl 4-ABP 4-Aminobiphenyl GC-MS 1.5 ng L−1 0.5 ng L−1
N-Acetyl-S-(2-carbamoylethyl)cysteine AAMA Acrylamide LC-MS/MS 4.1 ng mL−1 1.2 ng mL−1
N-acetyl-S-(2-hydroxy-2-carbamoylethyl)cysteine GAMA Acrylamide LC-MS/MS 1.0 ng mL−1 0.3 ng mL−1
Creatinine CRE Creatinine Picric acid assay 13.1 mg dL−1 NA
Open in a new tab

aAnalyzed at Analytisch Biologisches Forschungslabor (ABF, Munich, Germany) except for creatinine, which was analyzed at Celerion (formerly MDS Pharma, Lincoln, NE).

bCalculated as NNAL-T–NNAL-U

LLOQ, lower limit of quantitation; NA, not applicable; LC-MS/MS, liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; GC-MS, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry.

Table 2. Blood biomarkers of exposure and analytical methods.

Biomarkera Abbreviation Chemical constituent Matrix Method LLOQ LOD
Nicotine NIC-U Nicotine Serum LC-MS/MS 2.00 ng mL−1 NA
Cotinine COT-U Nicotine Serum LC-MS/MS 20.00 ng mL−1 NA
Carboxyhemoglobin %COHb Carbon monoxide Whole blood Spectrophotometric 0.1 mg dL−1 NA
Open in a new tab

aAnalyzed at Celerion (formerly MDS Pharma, Lincoln, NE).

LLOQ, lower limit of quantitation; NA, not applicable; LC-MS/MS, liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

Statistical methods

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model using least squares (LS) means was used to compare urine and blood biomarkers among SMK, MSC and NTC. Age stratum was included in the model as a classification variable, because age is a presumed confounder of tobacco exposure and CVD outcomes. Tobacco group, age stratum, and the interaction between group and age were fixed effects in the model, and the SAS® PROC MIXED procedure was used to perform the analyses. If the interaction between group and age was not statistically significant, the main effect was used to interpret the group results. If the interaction was significant, the simple (i.e. group-by-age) effects were used to interpret the results. LS means by age stratum are not presented except when necessary to interpret simple effects. Statistical significance was indicated at p ≤ 0.05, and observed p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Biomarker values reported as below the limit of detection (LOD) for individual metabolites were replaced with one-half of the LOD for the statistical analysis.

Results

Demographics and product usage

One hundred sixty-eight males were enrolled and completed the study (SMK, n = 60; MSC, n = 48; NTC, n = 60). Demographics and tobacco product usage are summarized in Tables 3–5, respectively. The majority of participants in all three groups were Caucasian, and the mean body mass index (BMI) values within each age stratum and tobacco group were all >26, suggesting that approximately half of the participants would have been considered overweight (i.e. BMI >25). Mean years of tobacco product use within age stratum were generally consistent between SMK and MSC. More broadly, for the SMK group, smoking years ranged from 7 to 33 years, and the MSC group ranged in moist snuff use from 7 to 29 years. FTND scores were generally similar between SMK and MSC within age stratum, ranging between 4.5 and 5.9, overall.

Table 3. Demographic summary statistics, SMK, MSC and NTC.

  SMK MSC NTC
n 60 48 60
Race      
 African-American 2 1 6
 Caucasian 57 47 45
 Hispanic 0 0 5
 Othera 1 0 4
Age      
 Mean (SD) 37.2 (6.9) 36.5 (6.3) 36.9 (7.0)
 Min, max 26, 48 26, 49 26, 48
Weight (lbs)      
 Mean (SD) 197.0 (35.9) 214.1 (37.5) 194.8 (28.8)
 Min, max 124.0, 300.4 149.0, 333.6 138.6, 284.6
Height (inch)      
 Mean (SD) 70.6 () 70.7 (2.2) 70.3 (2.3)
 Min, max 65.5, 77.0 64.5, 75.0 65.8, 75.0
BMI (kg/m2)      
 Mean (SD) 27.8 (4.9) 30.1 (5.0) 27.8 (4.5)
 Min, max 19.1, 39.3 21.5, 49.3 19.9, 46.3
COPD status (n)      
 FEV1/FVC <70 8 1 4
 FEV1/FVC ≥70 52 47 56
Open in a new tab

aAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander and European/Middle Eastern. Min, minimum; max, maximum; FEV1/FVC, the forced expiratory volume in 1 s/the forced vital capacity; SD, standard deviation.

Table 4. Demographic summary statistics by age stratum, SMK, MSC and NTC.

  SMK
 MSC
 NTC
Age (years) 26–31 32–37 38–43 44–49 26–31 32–37 38–43 44–49 26–31 32–37 38–43 44–49
n 15 15 15 15 14 12 15 7 15 15 15 15
Race                        
 African-American 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 1
 Caucasian 14 14 15 14 13 12 15 7 7 12 12 14
 Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0
 Othera 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0
Age                        
 Mean (SD) 28 (1.4) 34.3 (1.9) 40.7 (1.5) 45.7 (1.4) 28.7 (1.8) 35 (1.6) 40.7 (1.7) 45.9 (2.2) 27.6 (1.4) 34.3 (1.7) 39.5 (1.5) 46.1 (1.3)
 Min, max 26, 31 32, 37 38, 43 44, 48 26, 31 32, 37 38, 43 44, 49 26, 31 32, 37 38, 42 44, 48
Weight (lbs)                        
 Mean (SD) 197.2 (32.0) 196.7 (26.1) 205.7 (44.8) 188.4 (39.5) 214.0 (39.7) 217.7 (34.0) 216.5 (43.3) 203.2 (30.2) 187.2 (31.4) 200.2 (35.2) 191.7 (14.8) 200.1 (30.4)
 Min, max 136.8, 251.6 158.0, 259.2 124.0, 269.0 127.4, 300.4 149.0, 273.2 158.0, 259.8 152.0, 333.6 153.8, 244.2 138.6, 232.8 156.4, 284.6 163.8, 225.2 155.2, 252.4
Height (inch)                        
 Mean (SD) 70.4 (2.3) 71.2 (2.4) 69.9 (2.3) 71.1 (2.4) 70.8 (2.0) 69.8 (2.7) 71.1 (2.4) 70.9 (1.6) 70.6 (2.4) 70.2 (2.3) 70.6 (2.0) 70.0 (2.6)
 Min, max 66.5, 73.3 68.0,76.8 65.5,74.0 68.5,77.0 67.5,73.8 64.5,73.3 67.8,75.0 69.0,73.0 67.0,75.0 65.8,74.8 67.5,73.8 66.0,73.8
BMI (kg/m2)                        
 Mean (SD) 28.0 (4.9) 27.4 (4.3) 29.6 (6.1) 26.1 (4.2) 29.9 (4.4) 31.2 (3.4) 30.3 (6.8) 28.4 (3.8) 26.4 (4.1) 28.8 (6.3) 27.1 (2.5) 28.7 (4.1)
 Min, max 19.9,39.1 22.6,38.3 19.7,39.3 19.1,35.7 23.0,35.7 24.5,35.3 22.5,49.3 21.5,32.2 19.9,33.0 22.3,46.3 22.7,31.1 22.2,36.8
COPD status (n)                        
 FEV1/FVC <70 1 1 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2
 FEV1/FVC ≥70 14 14 11 13 14 12 14 7 15 15 13 13
Open in a new tab

aAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander and European/Middle Eastern. SD, standard deviation.

Table 5. Summary of tobacco product use, SMK and MSC.

  SMK
 MSC
Age (years) 26–31 32–37 38–43 44–49 26–31 32–37 38–43 44–49
n 15 15 15 15 14 12 15 7
Years of product use                
 Mean (SD) 10.9 (2.1) 17.5 (3.8) 21.1 (3.9) 27.0 (5.1) 12.0 (3.2) 18.3 (5.8) 24.3 (2.9) 26.3 (3.3)
 Min, max 7, 15 10, 24 14, 27 11, 33 7, 18 4, 28 18, 29 20, 29
Product usea                
 Mean (SD) 20.5 (5.7) 19.3 (4.8) 19.2 (4.2) 24.3 (8.4) 4.6 (1.9) 4.4 (1.7) 3.8 (1.2) 3.9 (2.0)
 Min, max 15, 40 10.5, 30 15, 30 15, 40 2, 7 2, 7 2, 7 2, 7
Product use, last 24 hb                
 Mean (SD) 18.0 (3.2) 15.1 (5.4) 19.8 (5.5) 21.9 (9.1) 1.0 (0.3) 1.0 (0.1) 1.1 (0.3) 0.9 (0.2)
 Min, max 11.5, 24 2, 21 10, 30 10, 40 0.5, 2 0.5, 1 0.5, 2 0.5, 1
FTNDc score                
 Mean (SD) 4.5 (1.8) 5.3 (1.6) 4.7 (1.6) 5.9 (2.1) 5.4 (2.0) 5.8 (1.9) 5.3 (2.2) 5.6 (1.2)
 Min, max 2, 8 2, 8 2, 7 3, 10 2, 9 3, 9 2, 9 4, 7
Open in a new tab

aCigarettes per day for SMK, tins per week for MSC.

bNumber of cigarettes for SMK and number of tins for MSC reported on 1-day diary.

cSMK completed the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence, MSC completed the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence-ST. SD, standard deviation.

Adverse events

Seventeen of the 168 subjects reported 25 adverse events (AEs) during the confinement period (for SMK, 5 subjects and 8 AEs; for MSC, 9 subjects and 10 AEs; for NTC, 3 subjects and 7 AEs). None of the AEs were considered serious (i.e. a serious adverse event, SAE) by the Principal Investigator (PI). All AEs were mild (20) or moderate (4) in severity, with the exception of a single severe case of lightheadedness. The PI considered 5 of the 25 AEs (e.g. pain in extremity, hyperhidrosis) not to be related to study product (i.e. the subject’s UB of cigarettes or moist snuff) and the remaining 20 AEs to be possibly related. Headache (11) and lightheadedness (dizziness) (5) were the most commonly reported AEs. Headache was reported in 11 subjects, with eight episodes considered mild in severity. All but one of the episodes of headache was considered possibly related to study product. Dizziness was reported by a total of four subjects, with three episodes considered mild in severity, one considered moderate in severity and one considered severe. The PI initially considered four of the five episodes of lightheadedness possibly related to study product. However, a review of the source data regarding these episodes revealed that three episodes of lightheadedness occurred during or immediately after venipuncture procedures, and one of these subjects was in the NTC group. Therefore, these episodes were deemed related to the study procedure and not study product use. No subjects withdrew from the study due to an AE. All AEs were followed to resolution regardless of whether the subject was still on-study or had completed the study.

Biomarkers

Concentrations of urinary BoE are presented in Table 6 and blood BoE concentrations are presented in Table 7. Both SMK and MSC had statistically significantly greater serum unconjugated nicotine (NIC-U) levels (p < 0.001) and urine NicEq (p < 0.0001) than NTC. For nicotine (NicEq), the age main effect and age-by-group interactions were statistically significant. Further analysis indicated that in the 44–49-year age group, NicEq was statistically significantly greater in MSC compared with SMK [LS means ± standard error (SE) of 18.74 ± 1.86 for MSC, 9.53 ± 1.31 for SMK and 0.04 ± 1.27 for NTC, units in picogram per milligram CRE]. For serum NIC-U, MSC and SMK were not statistically significantly different (p = 0.07). Similarly, a statistically significant age main effect and age-by-group interactions were detected for unconjugated cotinine (COT-U), and further analysis indicated that levels were statistically significantly greater in MSC compared to SMK in the 38–43 years (p = 0.0102) and 44–49 years (p < 0.0001) age strata.

Table 6. Summary of urine BoE comparisons.

      LS means ± SEa
 Group comparison p valueb
Chemical constituent Biomarker Age (years) SMK MSC NTC SMK versus MSC SMK versus NTC MSC versus NTC
Nicotine NicEq (µg mg−1 CRE)c 26–31 8.22 ± 1.27 7.92 ± 1.36 0.06 ± 1.27 1.0000 <0.0001 <0.0001
    32–37 8.03 ± 1.27 11.6 ± 1.42 0.04 ± 1.31 0.1908 <0.0001 <0.0001
    38–43 7.73 ± 1.27 10.49 ± 1.31 0.06 ± 1.27 0.3957 <0.0001 <0.0001
    44–49 9.53 ± 1.31 18.74 ± 1.86 0.04 ± 1.27 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001
NNK NNAL-T (pg mg−1 CRE)   656 ± 72.9 1594 ± 85.6 7.94 ± 72.9 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Benzene S-PMA (ng mg−1 CRE)   2.63 ± 0.19 0.51 ± 0.23 0.46 ± 0.19 <0.0001 <0.0001 1.0000
Acrolein 3-HPMA (ng mg−1 CRE)   1824 ± 73.7 160 ± 85.7 145 ± 74.3 <0.0001 <0.0001 1.0000
1-Hydroxypyrene 1-OHP-T (ng mg−1 CRE)   0.22 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.02 0.05 ± 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.5439
1,3-Butadiene MHBMA (ng mg−1 CRE)   4.37 ± 0.29 0.45 ± 0.34 0.72 ± 0.29 <0.0001 <0.0001 1.0000
Crotonaldehyde HMPMA (ng mg−1 CRE)   7229 ± 263 598 ± 309 660 ± 263 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.8787
o-Toluidine o-T (pg mg−1 CRE)   193 ± 7.15 43.3 ± 8.84 41.2 ± 7.16 <0.0001 <0.0001 1.0000
2-Aminonaphthalene 2-AN (pg mg−1 CRE)   31.2 ± 1.16 1.99 ± 1.44 1.23 ± 1.16 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.6813
4-Aminobiphenyl 4-ABP (pg mg−1 CRE)   21.4 ± 0.93 2.74 ± 1.15 2.43 ± 0.93 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.8307
3-Aminobyphenyl 3-ABP (pg mg−1 CRE)   11.1 ± 0.50 0.6 ± 0.62 0.66 ± 0.50 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.9412
Acrylamide AAMA (ng mg−1 CRE)   221 ± 8.65 106 ± 10.1 78.0 ± 8.73 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.1199
Acrylamide GAMA (ng mg−1 CRE)   35.1 ± 1.08 16.1 ± 1.26 15.8 ± 1.09 <0.0001 <0.0001 1.0000
Open in a new tab

aLeast squares means ± SE.

bBonferroni-adjusted. p values that exceeded 1.000 after adjustment are reported as 1.000.

cSignificant group-by-age interaction (p < 0.05).

Table 7. Summary of blood BoE comparisons.

      LS Means ± SEa
 Group comparison p valueb
Chemical constituent Biomarker Age (years) SMK MSC NTC SMK versus MSC SMK versus NTC MSC versus NTC
Carbon monoxide COHb (% saturated)   7.88 ± 0.17 1.12 ± 0.20 1.06 ± 0.17 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.7960
Nicotine NIC-U (ng mL−1)   31.5 ± 0.99 28.7 ± 1.15 0.27 ± 0.99 0.0709 <0.0001 <0.0001
Nicotine COT-U (ng mL−1)c 26–31 323 ± 45.3 466 ± 46.9 1.20 ± 45.3 0.0870 <0.0001 <0.0001
    32–37 352 ± 45.3 466 ± 50.6 0.11 ± 45.3 0.2826 <0.0001 <0.0001
    38–43 363 ± 45.3 554 ± 45.3 0.25 ± 45.3 0.0102 <0.0001 <0.0001
    44–49 339 ± 45.3 773 ± 66.3 0.11 ± 45.3 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Open in a new tab

aLeast squares means ± SE.

bBonferroni-adjusted. p values that exceeded 1.000 after adjustment are reported as 1.000.

cSignificant group-by-age interaction (p < 0.05).

Concentrations of urinary NNAL in MSC were statistically significantly greater than the levels measured in both SMK and NTC, and were statistically significantly greater in SMK compared with NTC (LS means ± SE of 1594 ± 85.6 for MSC, 656 ± 72.9 for SMK and 7.94 ± 72.9 for NTC, units in picogram per milligram CRE). Biomarkers for the combustion compounds benzene (S-PMA), acrolein (3-HPMA), pyrene (1-OHP-T), 1,3-butadiene (MHBMA), crotonaldehyde (HMPMA), aromatic amines (o-T, 2-AN, 4-ABP and 3-ABP), acrylamide (AAMA and GAMA) and carbon monoxide (%COHb) were statistically significantly (Tables 6 and 7) greater in SMK compared to both MSC and NTC. Levels of these compounds were not statistically significantly different between MSC and NTC.

Discussion

A continuum of risk exists among tobacco products, with combustible products associated with the greatest risk of disease (Nutt et al., 2014; Zeller, 2009). Reducing the risk of diseases attributed to conventional cigarette smoking may be possible with the reduction in exposure to harmful or potentially harmful tobacco and tobacco smoke constituents [Institute of Medicine (IOM), 2011; Stratton et al., 2001]. BoE are useful for the determination of actual consumer exposures to constituents when using one tobacco product versus another (Gregg et al., 2013; Hatsukami et al., 2006; IOM, 2011; Stratton et al., 2001).

More than 90 constituents found in tobacco and tobacco smoke have been identified as harmful or potentially harmful [Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2012]. Specific to cardiovascular toxicity, acrolein, benzene and certain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been identified (FDA, 2012). In addition, carbon monoxide and 1,3-butadiene have been suggested to be potential contributors to the mechanisms for increased risk of CVD in cigarette smokers (SMK) (Benowitz, 2003; USDHHS, 2010). Nicotine has also been proposed as a contributor, although this potential relationship may not be supported based on the lack of evidence of increased risk for CVD among smokers who used NRT (Benowitz, 2003; USDHHS, 2010) and users of Swedish snus (ST) (Hansson et al., 2012, 2014).

Results from the study reported here generally indicated a reduction in exposure to tobacco and tobacco smoke BoE among MSC compared with SMK, with levels in MSC similar to those among NTC. Findings from previous studies have also indicated statistically significantly higher tobacco and tobacco smoke BoE in SMK compared with non-smokers (Calapai et al., 2009; Heudorf & Angerer, 2001; Lowe et al., 2009; Nan et al., 2001; Naufal et al., 2011; Roethig et al., 2009; Scherer, 2005; Vesper et al., 2010). In addition, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), few statistically significant differences in tobacco and tobacco smoke BoE were reported among ST consumers compared with consumers not using tobacco (Naufal et al., 2011).

Specific to constituents potentially associated with cardiovascular toxicity, biomarkers of acrolein, benzene, pyrene, carbon monoxide and 1,3-butadiene were similarly all statistically significantly decreased in MSC versus SMK and were not statistically significantly different in comparisons of MSC and NTC. For nicotine, a significant age-by-cohort interaction was detected for both urinary NicEq and serum COT-U. No statistically significant age-related differences in nicotine systemic exposure (p values not reported) were observed in SMK and NTC; however, the statistically significant increases in serum COT-U in MSC compared with SMK in the oldest two age groups are consistent with findings from previous studies (Hecht et al., 2007; Naufal et al., 2011) and is possibly due to route of exposure differences (i.e. oral versus inhalation exposure).

In contrast to the majority of BoE reductions, the urinary NNAL level in MSC was statistically significantly greater compared to SMK overall. These results are consistent with previous findings, which have indicated that NNK is metabolized to NNAL to a greater extent (∼3- to 4-fold) in consumers of ST compared to SMK (Hecht et al., 2007, 2008; Stepanov & Hecht, 2005). Additionally, data from NHANES (2007–2008) indicated that NNAL concentrations were 4.7- to 6.0-fold higher in ST consumers than in SMK (Naufal et al., 2011). Results from the current study showed that urinary creatinine-adjusted NNAL levels were ∼2.5-fold higher in MSC than SMK, similar to the ∼2-fold higher levels of NNAL in ST consumers versus SMK reported by Hecht et al. (2007). The increased systemic exposure to the carcinogen NNK [International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2007] among ST users is not consistent with epidemiological findings, which do not show a statistically significant increase in the risk of cancer among ST users in studies that appropriately controlled for confounding factors (Lee & Hamling, 2009).

A limitation of this study is the exclusion of female subjects. Females were excluded due to the low potential recruitment pool for the MSC group, and because of the complications in data interpretation related to between-gender and within-gender differences (especially during menstrual cycles) in biomarkers of inflammation such as the interleukins and C-reactive protein (Jilma et al., 1997). Strengths of this study include the relative exclusivity of the SMK, MSC and NTC groups and the extensive number of BoE evaluated. BoE results distinguish between SMK, MSC and NTC based on product use, and quantify the differences in exposures to individual tobacco and tobacco smoke constituents. The observed patterns of systemic exposure to many harmful and potentially harmful constituents, including constituents that may be relevant to the development of CVD, are consistent with the different risks for CVD associated with the use of combusted and non-combusted tobacco product categories observed in epidemiological studies (Henley et al., 2005; Thun et al., 2000). Ultimately, these findings support variations in systemic exposure with the use of different tobacco products and are relevant to the understanding of a tobacco product risk continuum among combustible and non-combustible tobacco products.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank David Heavner, Thomas Steichen and Celerion (Lincoln, NE; formerly MSD Pharma Services) for their significant contributions to this study.

Declaration of interest

All authors are current or former employees of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and RAI Services Company and report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

References

  1. Adhikari B, Kahende J, Malarcher A, et al. Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses – United States, 2000–2004. MMWR. 2008;57:1226–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Benowitz NL. Cigarette smoking and cardiovascular disease: pathophysiology and implications for treatment. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2003;46:91–111. doi: 10.1016/s0033-0620(03)00087-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Byrd GD, Ogden MW. Liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric method for the determination of the tobacco-specific nitrosamine metabolite NNAL in smokers’ urine. J Mass Spectrom. 2003;38:98–107. doi: 10.1002/jms.406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Calapai G, Caputi AP, Mannucci C, et al. A cross-sectional investigation of biomarkers of risk after a decade of smoking. Inhal Toxicol. 2009;21:1138–43. doi: 10.3109/08958370902798455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) FTC rescinds guidance from 1966 on statements concerning tar and nicotine yields. 2008 http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/11/cigarettetesting.shtm Available from: [Last accessed 7 Nov 2012]
  6. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for industry: reporting harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke under Section 904(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Draft guidance. 2012 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM297828.pdf Available from: [Last accessed 25 Mar 2014]
  7. Gillespie CD, Wigington C, Hong Y. Coronary heart disease and stroke deaths—United States, 2009. MMWR. 2013;62:157–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gregg EQ, Minet E, McEwan M. Urinary biomarkers of smokers' exposure to tobacco smoke constituents in tobacco products assessment: a fit for purpose approach. Biomarkers. 2013;18:467–86. doi: 10.3109/1354750X.2013.821523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hansson J, Galanti MR, Hergens MP, et al. Use of snus and acute myocardial infarction: pooled analysis of eight prospective observational studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27:771–9. doi: 10.1007/s10654-012-9704-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hansson J, Galanti MR, Hergens MP, et al. Snus (Swedish smokeless tobacco) use and risk of stroke: pooled analyses of incidence and survival. J Int Med. 2014;276:87–95. doi: 10.1111/joim.12219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hatsukami DK, Benowitz NL, Rennard SI, et al. Biomarkers to assess the utility of potential reduced exposure tobacco products. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8:600–22. doi: 10.1080/14622200600858166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Heavner DL, Morgan WT, Sears SB, et al. Effect of creatinine and specific gravity normalization techniques on xenobiotic biomarkers in smokers’ spot and 24-h urines. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2006;40:928–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2005.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hecht SS, Carmella SG, Edmonds A, et al. Exposure to nicotine and a tobacco-specific carcinogen increase with duration of use of smokeless tobacco. Tob Control. 2008;17:128–31. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.023242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hecht SS, Carmella SG, Murphy SE, et al. Similar exposure to a tobacco-specific carcinogen in smokeless tobacco users and cigarette smokers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:1567–72. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Henley SJ, Connell CJ, Richter P, et al. Tobacco-related disease mortality among men who switched from cigarettes to spit tobacco. Tob Control. 2007;16:22–8. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.018069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Henley SJ, Thun MJ, Connell C, Calle EE. Two large prospective studies of mortality among men who use snuff or chewing tobacco (United States) Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16:347–58. doi: 10.1007/s10552-004-5519-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Heudorf U, Angerer J. Urinary monohydroxylated phenanthrenes and hydroxypyrene – the effects of smoking habits and changes induced by smoking on monooxygenase-mediated metabolism. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2001;74:177–83. doi: 10.1007/s004200000215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Institute of Medicine (IOM) Scientific standards for studies on modified risk tobacco products. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  19. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Smokeless tobacco and some tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, volume 89. Lyon, France: World Health Organization; 2007. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jilma B, Dirnberger E, Löscher I, et al. Menstrual cycle-associated changes in blood levels of interleukin-6, alpha1 acid glycoprotein, and C-reactive protein. J Lab Clin Med. 1997;130:69–75. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2143(97)90060-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee PN, Hamling J. Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America. BMC Med. 2009;7:36. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lowe FJ, Gregg EO, McEwan M. Evaluation of biomarkers of exposure and potential harm in smokers, former smokers and never-smokers. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009;47:311–20. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2009.069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Marano KM, Kathman SJ, Jones BA. Study of cardiovascular disease biomarkers among tobacco consumers, part 3: evaluation and comparison with the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Inhal Toxicol. 2015 doi: 10.3109/08958378.2015.1009196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Meger M, Meger-Kossien I, Schuler-Metz A, et al. Simultaneous determination of nicotine and eight nicotine metabolites in urine of smokers using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2002;778:251–61. doi: 10.1016/s0378-4347(01)00451-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Messner B, Bernhard D. Smoking and cardiovascular disease mechanisms of endothelial dysfunction and early atherogenesis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2014;34:509–15. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.113.300156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Nan HM, Kim H, Lim HS, et al. Effects of occupation, lifestyle and genetic polymorphisms of CYP1A1, CYP2E1, GSTM1 and GSTT1 on urinary 1-hydroxypyrene and 2-naphthol concentrations. Carcinogenesis. 2001;22:787–93. doi: 10.1093/carcin/22.5.787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Naufal ZS, Marano KM, Kathman SJ, Wilson CL. Differential exposure biomarker levels among cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco consumers in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2008. Biomarkers. 2011;16:222–35. doi: 10.3109/1354750X.2010.546013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Nordskog BK, Brown BG, Marano KM. Study of cardiovascular disease biomarkers among tobacco consumers, part 2: biomarkers of biological effect. Inhal Toxicol. 2015 doi: 10.3109/08958378.2015.1013227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Nutt DJ, Phillips LD, Balfour D, et al. Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20:218–25. doi: 10.1159/000360220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Piano MR, Benowitz NL, Fitzgerald GA, et al. Impact of smokeless tobacco products on cardiovascular disease: implications for policy, prevention, and treatment: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;122:1520–44. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181f432c3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Roethig HJ, Munjal S, Feng S, et al. Population estimates for biomarkers of exposure to cigarette smoke in adult U.S. cigarette smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11:1216–25. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntp126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Scherer G. Biomonitoring of inhaled complex mixtures – ambient air, diesel exhaust and cigarette smoke. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2005;57:75–110. doi: 10.1016/j.etp.2005.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Stepanov I, Hecht SS. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines and their pyridine-N-glucuronides in the urine of smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:885–91. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Stratton K, Shetty P, Wallace R, Bondurant S. Clearing the smoke: the science base for tobacco harm reduction—executive summary. Tob Control. 2001;10:189–95. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.2.189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Thun MJ, Apicella LF, Henley SJ. Smoking vs other risk factors as the cause of smoking-attributable deaths: confounding in the courtroom. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;284:706–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.6.706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. US Department of Health and Human Services. (USDHHS) The health consequences of smoking: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  37. US Department of Health and Human Services. (USDHHS) How tobacco smoke causes disease: the biology and behavioral basis for smoking-attributable disease: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2010. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Vesper HW, Caudill SP, Osterloh JD, et al. Exposure of the U.S. population to acrylamide in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003–2004. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118:278–83. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0901021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. World Health Organization (WHO) Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), Fact Sheet No. 317. 2013 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/ Available from: [Last accessed 27 Mar 2014]
  40. Zeller M, Hatsukami D. Strategic Dialogue on Tobacco Harm Reduction Group The Strategic Dialogue on Tobacco Harm Reduction: a vision and blueprint for action in the US. Tob Control. 2009;18:324–32. doi: 10.1136/tc.2008.027318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Inhalation Toxicology are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES