RESEARCH PAPER
Use of electronic nicotine delivery systems by pregnant women II: Hair biomarkers for exposures to nicotine and tobacco-specific nitrosamines
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, United States
2
Department of Epidemiology, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, United States
3
Department of Biostatistics, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, United States
4
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, United States
5
Department of Community Health, University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Lori A. Fischbach   

Department of Epidemiology, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham, AR 72205, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
Publish date: 2019-06-06
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2019;17(June):50
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Public awareness of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has increased over time, and the perception that ENDS offer a safer alternative to cigarettes may lead some pregnant women to use them to reduce cigarette smoking during pregnancy. No previous studies have used metabolite levels in hair to measure nicotine exposure for ENDS users during pregnancy. We aimed to measure and compare levels of nicotine, cotinine, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) in hair samples from pregnant women who were current ENDS users, current smokers, and current non-smokers. We also aimed to estimate the association between ENDS use/smoking and smallness for gestational age (SGA).

Methods:
We used hair specimens from pregnant women who were dual users (ENDS and cigarettes), smokers, and non-smokers from a prospective cohort study to estimate exposure to nicotine, cotinine, and TSNAs. The exposure biomarkers and self-reports of smoking and ENDS use were used in log-binomial regression models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) for SGA among offspring.

Results:
Nicotine concentrations for pregnant dual users were not significantly different from those for smokers (11.0 and 10.6 ng/mg hair, respectively; p=0.58). Similarly, levels of cotinine, and TSNAs for pregnant dual users were not lower than those for smokers. The RR for SGA was similar for dual users and smokers relative to nonsmokers, (RR=3.5, 95% CI: 0.8–14.8) and (RR=3.3, 95% CI: 0.9– 11.6), respectively. Using self-reports confirmed by hair nicotine, the RR values for dual ENDS users and smokers were 8.3 (95% CI: 1.0–69.1) and 7.3 (95% CI:1.0–59.0), respectively.

Conclusions:
We did not observe lower levels of nicotine, cotinine, and TSNAs for current dual users compared to smokers during pregnancy. The risk of SGA for offspring of pregnant dual users was similar to that for offspring of pregnant smokers. Future studies are needed to further estimate the magnitude of the association between ENDS use and smallness for gestational age.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financial or otherwise, related to the current work. U. Ekanem reports grants from Arkansas Department of Health, personal fees from University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) - National Center for Research Resources and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, during the conduct of the study. The rest of the authors have also completed and submitted an ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
FUNDING
This work was supported in part, by grant funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program (UL1TR000039 and KL2TR000063) and from the Arkansas Department of Health to the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Minority Research Center on Tobacco and Addictions. In addition, the work received support from the Arkansas Bioscience Institute and the Envoys, an advocacy group of the UAMS Cancer Institute Foundation.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (42)
1.
Lauterstein D, Hoshino R, Gordon T, Watkins BX, Weitzman M, Zelikoff J. The changing face of tobacco use among United States youth. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2014;7(1):29-43. doi:10.2174/1874473707666141015220110
 
2.
Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Gentzke AS, Apelberg BJ, Jamal A, King BA. Notes from the Field: Use of Electronic Cigarettes and Any Tobacco Product Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2011–2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:1276-1277. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6745a5
 
3.
Kurti AN, Redner R, Lopez AA, et al. Tobacco and nicotine delivery product use in a national sample of pregnant women. Prev Med. 2017;104:50-56. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.030
 
4.
Wagner NJ, Camerota M, Propper C. Prevalence and perceptions of electronic cigarette use during pregnancy. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(8):1655-1661. doi:10.1007/s10995-016-2257-9
 
5.
Mark KS, Farquhar B, Chisolm MS, Coleman-Cowger VH, Terplan M. Knowledge, attitudes, and practice of electronic cigarette use among pregnant women. J Addict Med. 2015;9(4):266-272. doi:10.1097/adm.0000000000000128
 
6.
Drope J, Cahn Z, Kennedy R, et al. Key issues surrounding the health impacts of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and other sources of nicotine. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(6):449-471. doi:10.3322/caac.21413
 
7.
Morain SR, Malek J. Minimum Age of Sale for Tobacco Products and Electronic Cigarettes: Ethical Acceptability of US “Tobacco 21 Laws”. Am J Public Health. 2017;1107(9):1401-1405. doi:10.2105/ajph.2017.303900
 
8.
Barraza LF, Weidenaar KE, Cook LT, Logue AR, Halpern MT. Regulations and policies regarding e-cigarettes. Cancer. 2017;123(16):3007-3014. doi:10.1002/cncr.30725
 
9.
Farsalinos KE, Gillman IG, Melvin MS, et al. Nicotine levels and presence of selected tobacco-derived toxins in tobacco flavoured electronic cigarette refill liquids. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(4):3439-3452. doi:10.3390/ijerph120403439
 
10.
Goniewicz ML, Jakub K, Michal G, et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapor from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2014;23(2):133-139 . doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859
 
11.
Laugesen M. Safety Report on the Ruyan® e-cigarette Cartridge and Inhaled Aerosol. Christchurch, New Zealand: Health New Zealand; 2008. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/Ruya.... Accessed November 27, 2018.
 
12.
Kim HJ, Shin HS. Determination of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in replacement liquids of electronic cigarettes by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1291:48–55. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2013.03.035
 
13.
Westenberger BJ. Evaluation of e-Cigarettes. St. Louis, MO: Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis; 2009.
 
14.
Shahab L, Goniewicz ML, Blount BC, et al. Nicotine, carcinogen and toxicant exposure in long-term e- cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users: a cross- sectional study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(6):390-400. doi:10.7326/m16-1107
 
15.
Goniewicz ML, Gawron M, Smith DM, Peng M, Jacob P, Benowitz NL. Exposure to nicotine and selected toxicants in cigarette smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes: A longitudinal within-subjects observational study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;19(2):160-167. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntw160
 
16.
Schick SF, Blount BC, Jacob P, et al. Biomarkers of exposure to new and emerging tobacco delivery products. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2017;313(3):L425-L452. doi:10.1152/ajplung.00343.2016
 
17.
Florescu A, Ferrence R, Einarson TR, et al. Reference values for hair cotinine as a biomarker of active and passive smoking in women of reproductive age, pregnant women, children, and neonates: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Drug Monit. 2007;29:437-446. doi:10.1097/ftd.0b013e318074df6e
 
18.
Kim S, Apelberg BJ, Avila-Tang E, et al. Utility and cutoff value of hair nicotine as a biomarker of long-term tobacco smoke exposure, compared to salivary cotinine. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(8):8368-8382. doi:10.3390/ijerph110808368
 
19.
Dietz PM, Homa D, England LJ, et al. Estimates of nondisclosure of cigarette smoking among pregnant and nonpregnant women of reproductive age in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(3):355-359. doi:10.1093/aje/kwq381
 
20.
Courtney R. The Health Consequences of Smoking - 50 Years of Progress. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2014. doi:10.1111/dar.12309
 
21.
Farsalinos KE, Gillman G, Poulas K, Voudris V. Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in Electronic Cigarettes: Comparison between Liquid and Aerosol Levels. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(8):9046-9053. doi:10.3390/ijerph120809046
 
22.
Roy TS, Sabherwal U. Effects of gestational nicotine exposure on hippocampal morphology. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 20(4):465-473. doi:10.1016/S0892-0362(97)00137-2
 
23.
Roy TS, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. Prenatal nicotine exposure evokes alterations of cell structure in hippocampus and somatosensory cortex. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;300(1):124-133. doi:10.1124/jpet.300.1.124
 
24.
Slotkin TA. If nicotine is a developmental neurotoxicant in animal studies, dare we recommend nicotine replacement therapy in pregnant women and adolescents? Neurotoxicol Teratol. 30(1):1-19. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2007.09.002
 
25.
Han S, Chen H, Zhang X, Liu T, Fu Y. Levels of Selected Groups of Compounds in Refill Solutions for Electronic Cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):708-714. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntv189
 
26.
Cardenas VM, Cen R, Clemens MM, et al. Use of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) by pregnant women I: Risk of small-for-gestational-age birth. Tob Induc Dis. 2019;17(May). doi:10.18332/tid/106089
 
27.
Joya X, Pacifici R, Salat-Batlle J, García-Algar O, Pichini S. Maternal and neonatal hair and breast milk in the assessment of perinatal exposure to drugs of abuse. Bioanalysis. 2015;7(10):1273-1297. doi:10.4155/bio.15.60
 
28.
Al-Delaimy W, Crane J, Woodward A. Passive smoking, as measured by hair nicotine, and severity of acute lower respiratory illnesses among children. Tob Induc Dis. 2002;1(1):27-33. doi:10.1186/1617-9625-1-1-27
 
29.
Al-Delaimy WK. Hair as a biomarker for exposure to tobacco smoke. Tob Control. 2002;11(3):176-182. doi:10.1136/tc.11.3.176
 
30.
Al-Delaimy WK, Crane J, Woodward A. Is the hair nicotine level a more accurate biomarker of environmental tobacco smoke exposure than urine cotinine? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56(1):66-71. doi:10.1136/jech.56.1.66
 
31.
Duryea EL, Hawkins JS, McIntire DD, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. A revised birth weight reference for the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(1):16-22. doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000345
 
32.
Kim SR, Wipfli H, Avila-Tang E, Samet JM, Breysse PN. Method validation for measurement of hair nicotine level in nonsmokers. Biomed Chromatogr. 2009;23(3):273-279. doi:10.1002/bmc.1110
 
33.
Pérez-Ortuño R, Martínez-Sánchez JM, Fu M, Fernández E, Pascual JA. Evaluation of tobacco specific nitrosamines exposure by quantification of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) in human hair of non-smokers. Sci Rep. Nature Publishing Group. 2016;6:25043. doi:10.1038/srep25043
 
34.
Mahoney GN, Al-Delaimy W. Measurement of nicotine in hair by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl. 2001;753:179-187. doi:10.1016/s0378-4347(00)00540-5
 
35.
Pichini S, Altieri I, Pellegrini M, Pacifici R, Zuccaro P. Hair analysis for nicotine and cotinine: Evaluation of extraction procedures, hair treatments, and development of reference material. Forensic Sci Int. 1997;84:243-252. doi:10.1016/s0379-0738(96)02068-3
 
36.
Man CN, Ismail S, Harn GL, Lajis R, Awang R. Determination of hair nicotine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B Anal Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2009;877(3):339-342. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.12.014
 
37.
Cantrell J, Emelle B, Ganz O, Hair EC, Vallone D. Rapid increase in e-cigarette advertising spending as Altria’s MarkTen enters the marketplace. Tob Control. 2016;25(e1):e16-e18. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052532
 
38.
Ekanem US, Cardenas VM, Cen R, et al. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Smoking Cessation in Arkansas, 2014. Public Health Rep. 2017;132(2):210-219. doi:10.1177/0033354916689611
 
39.
DiClemente CC, Dolan-Mullen P, Windsor RA. The process of pregnancy smoking cessation: implications for interventions. Tob Control. 2000;9(Suppl 3):iii16-iii21. doi:10.1136/tc.9.suppl_3.iii16
 
40.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation or Reduction: A Review of the Clinical Evidence. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b.... Accessed November 27, 2018.
 
41.
Wray JM, Gass JC, Tiffany ST. A systematic review of the relationships between craving and smoking cessation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(7):1167-1182. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts268
 
42.
Almeida ND, Koren G, Platt RW, Kramer MS. Hair biomarkers as measures of maternal tobacco smoke exposure and predictors of fetal growth. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(5):328-335. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq259
 
eISSN:1617-9625