4.5 Article

Racial Differences in the Relationship Between Number of Cigarettes Smoked and Nicotine and Carcinogen Exposure

Journal

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages 772-783

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntr072

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [DA02277, DA12393]
  2. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [CA78603]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Black smokers are reported to have higher lung cancer rates and greater tobacco dependence at lower levels of cigarette consumption compared to non-Hispanic White smokers. We studied the relationship between cigarettes per day (CPD) and biomarkers of nicotine and carcinogen exposure in Black and White smokers. Methods: In 128 Black and White smokers, we measured plasma nicotine and its main proximate metabolite cotinine, urine nicotine equivalents, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3)pyridyl-1-butanol (NNAL), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) metabolites. Results: The dose-response between CPD and nicotine equivalents, and NNAL and PAH was flat for Black but positive for White smokers (Race x CPD interaction, all ps < .05). Regression estimates for the Race x CPD interactions were 0.042 (95% CI 0.013-0.070), 0.054 (0.023-0.086), and 0.028 (0.004-0.052) for urine nicotine equivalents, NNAL, and PAHs, respectively. In contrast there was a strong correlation between nicotine equivalents and NNAL and PAH independent of race. Nicotine and carcinogen exposure per individual cigarette was inversely related to CPD. This inverse correlation was stronger in Black compared to White smokers and stronger in menthol compared to regular cigarette smokers (not mutually adjusted). Conclusions: Our data indicate that Blacks on average smoke cigarettes differently than White smokers such that CPD predicts smoke intake more poorly in Black than in White smokers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available