The validation of self-reported smoking status by analysing cotinine levels in stimulated and unstimulated saliva, serum and urine
The validation of self-reported smoking status by analysing cotinine levels in stimulated and unstimulated saliva, serum and urine
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1601-0825.2004.01018.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Malik, K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Binnie, V;McHugh, S;Malik, K
目的：可替宁是一种尼古丁代谢物，可用于测量烟草烟雾暴露。本研究的目的是比较从吸烟者和非吸烟者收集的不同生物体液中的可替宁水平，并将研究结果与自我报告的吸烟状况联系起来。还收集了有关不同样本收集方法的可接受性的数据。材料和方法：研究招募的患者被要求提供尿液、血液和唾液样本（包括刺激和非刺激）。通过问卷调查从患者那里收集的数据包括吸烟行为的信息，如每天吸烟的数量和吸烟的环境暴露。样本收集后，患者被要求评价每种采样方法的可接受性。采用酶免疫分析法（EIA）试剂盒对样品进行分析。结果：共有80例患者参与，其中49例为吸烟者，31例为非吸烟者。在所有不同的样本中，吸烟者和非吸烟者在可替宁方面有明显的差异（P < 0.001）。可替宁与唾液和尿液的日卷烟数之间存在显著关系（P均< 0.001），但与血清无显著关系。参与者认为血清和尿液收集方法“非常可接受”（分别为67%和66%），而9%的人认为刺激唾液收集“完全不可接受”。结论：可替宁无论采用何种采集方法，均能很好地区分吸烟者和非吸烟者。唾液样本具有非侵入性的优点，尽管收集方法很重要，因为可替宁水平可能会有所不同。
OBJECTIVES: Cotinine, a nicotine metabolite, can be used to measure exposure to tobacco smoke. The aim of this study was to compare cotinine levels in different biological fluids collected from both smokers and non-smokers and to relate the findings to self-reported smoking status. Data were also collected concerning the acceptability of the differing methods of sample collection.MATERIAL AND METHOD: Patients recruited to the study were asked to provide samples of urine, blood and saliva (both stimulated and unstimulated). Data collected from patients by questionnaire included information on smoking behaviour such as daily number of cigarettes and environmental exposure to smoke. After the sample collection, patients were asked to rate the acceptability of each sampling method. Samples were analysed using enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kits.RESULTS: In total, 80 patients participated, with 49 being smokers and 31 being non-smokers. There was clear differentiation between smokers and non-smokers (P < 0.001) for all the different samples in terms of cotinine. A significant relationship was seen between cotinine and daily number of cigarettes for both salivas and urine (all P < 0.001) but not for serum. Participants found serum and urine collection methodologies 'very acceptable' (67 and 66%, respectively) whereas 9% found collection of stimulated saliva 'not at all acceptable'.CONCLUSION: Cotinine, whatever the collection method and analysed by EIA kits, shows good differentiation between smokers and non-smokers. Salivary samples have the advantage of being non-invasive, although collection methodology is important, as cotinine levels may vary.