Active Smoking: Multi-Country Cotinine Study

The study used a common protocol in China, Mexico, Brazil, Poland, India and Korea to explore the relationship between smoking habits, cigarette content and nicotine dose. Recent analyses have addressed differences between less and more addicted smokers, differences in cotinine in “light” and regular cigarette smokers, and gender smoking patterns and addiction. Because nicotine is the addictive substance in cigarette smoke, this research may help to predict cessation rates, as well as provide guidance for treating nicotine addiction. Further, nicotine dosing can be used as a surrogate for exposure to the toxic substances in tobacco smoke and may predict adverse health outcomes of smoking as well.

Specific Aims

• To characterize the distribution of salivary cotinine levels among smokers in different ethnic or national groups.
• To investigate the determinants of salivary cotinine levels among smokers, with emphasis on assessing the relationship between number of cigarettes smoked and salivary cotinine levels.

The following potential determinants were studied:

• Number of cigarettes smoked during the day of the sample collection and during the previous day
• Number of cigarettes smoked daily on average
• Duration of smoking
• Brand of the cigarette
• Depth and frequency of inhalation
• Age, gender, BMI, and ethnic background

Partners

Brazilian National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil  
National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico  
Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China  
Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland  
Tata Memorial Center, Mumbai, India  

Related Publications
Campuzano J, Hernandez-Avila M, Jakkola M, Lazcano-Ponce E, Kuri-Morales, et al. Determinants of salivary cotinine levels among current smokers in Mexico. Nicotine Tob Res 2004; 6(6):997-1008. See article

Jaakkola MS, Ma J, Yang G, Chin MF, Benowitz NL, Ceraso M, Samet JM. Determinants of salivary cotinine concentrations in Chinese male smokers. Prev Med. 2003 Mar;36(3):282-90. See article