Search

BackgroundThe changing prevalence and patterns of tobacco use, the advent of novel nicotine delivery devices, and the development of new biomarkers prompted an update of the 2002 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) report on whether and how to apply biomarker verification for tobacco use and abstinence.MethodsThe SRNT Treatment Research Network convened a group of investigators with expertise in tobacco biomarkers to update the recommendations of the 2002 SNRT Biochemical Verification Report.ResultsBiochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence increases scientific rigor and is recommended in clinical trials of smoking cessation, when feasible. Sources, appropriate biospecimens, cutpoints, time of detection windows and analytic methods for carbon monoxide, cotinine (including over the counter tests), total nicotine equivalents, minor tobacco alkaloids, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol are reviewed, as well as biochemical approaches to distinguishing cigarette smoking from use of electronic nicotine delivery devices (ENDS).ConclusionsRecommendations are provided for whether and how to use biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence. Guidelines are provided on which biomarkers to use, which biospecimens to use, optimal cutpoints, time windows to detection, and methodology for biochemical verifications. Use of combinations of biomarkers is recommended for assessment of ENDS use.ImplicationsBiochemical verification increases scientific rigor, but there are drawbacks that need to be assessed to determine whether the benefits of biochemical verification outweigh the costs, including the cost of the assays, the feasibility of sample collection, the ability to draw clear conclusions based on the duration of abstinence, and the variability of the assay within the study population. This paper provides updated recommendations from the 2002 SRNT report on whether and how to use biochemical markers in determining tobacco use and abstinence.

The editorial discusses the impact of smoking on life expectancy, with each cigarette smoked estimated to shorten life by approximately 20 minutes, varying slightly between men and women. Data from British studies show that smokers who do not quit lose around 10-11 years of life expectancy compared to non-smokers. The article emphasizes the cumulative harm of smoking and the benefits of quitting at any age to prolong life and improve health. It also highlights the importance of total cessation rather than just reducing cigarette consumption for maximum health benefits. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives. The authors investigated the effects of cigarette smoking on midlife cognitive performance. Methods. Multiple regression was used to test the association between cigarette smoking and changes in cognitive test scores among male and female members of the British 1946 birth cohort aged between 43 and 53 years. Results. Smoking was associated with faster declines in verbal memory and with slower visual search speeds. These effects were largely accounted for by individuals who smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day and were independent of sex, socioeconomic status, previous (adolescent) cognitive ability, and a range of health indicators. Conclusions. The present results show that heavy smoking is associated with cognitive impairment and decline in midlife. Smokers who survive into later life may be at risk of clinically significant cognitive declines.

Objectives. This study investigated socioeconomic predictors of obesity in men and women. Methods. Data from the 1996 Health Survey for England were used to compare odds ratios for obesity by education, occupation, and 2 economic markers after control for age, marital status, and ethnicity. Results. Obesity risk was greater among men and women with fewer years of education and poorer economic circumstances and among women, but not men, of lower occupational status. Conclusions. Higher educational attainment and higher socioeconomic status were associated with a lower risk of Obesity in both men and women, whereas higher occupational status was associated with a lower risk only for women. The implications of these findings for understanding causes and prevention of obesity are discussed.