informative essay: "how to live a healthy life."

1

1. The facts about smoking

Introduction The detrimental effects of cigarette smoking on human health are wide ranging and affect every organ system in the body. Tobacco smoke is made up of numerous chemicals, many of which are toxic (including a large number of carcinogens).

Nicotine is the addictive compound in tobacco and it affects many parts of the nervous system and other cell types through interaction with specific nicotinic receptors. The effect of nicotine on individual smokers varies according to the efficiency and frequency of smoking, and the individual’s genetic characteristics, which will affect the way they metabolise the toxin (Benowitz & Hukkanen 2009).

Tobacco products pervade the whole body so several methods are required to measure the level of smoking and nicotine addiction. These may include questionnaires and the measurement of tobacco products in expired-air or biological fluids, either using sophisticated laboratory techniques or simpler point of care (poc) tests.

Smoking statistics Smoking is still common, with about 10 million British adults smoking on a daily basis. This accounts for about 22% of the adult male population and 19% of women (OLS 2012). The number of smokers has fallen dramatically since its peak in the 1940s, when approximately 80% of men and 40% of women were smokers, although then nearly half the male smokers used a pipe or cigars. The percentage of tobacco users worldwide who now use manufactured cigarettes continues to increase, accounting for 96% of world tobacco sales (Wald & Nicolaides-Bouman 1991).

Although there has been a significant fall in tobacco consumption in the UK during the last fifty years, the rate of reduction has slowed since the 1970s. The greatest reduction in smokers has been in the professional and managerial classes. Only 16% of these sectors of the population are now male smokers, compared to 33% of those in routine and manual occupations. The figures for women are similar, with 12% of women in managerial positions smoking and 32% of those with manual jobs (OLS 2012).

The first large-scale trial evidence that smoking was harmful and caused lung cancer came from independent work in 1950 by Doll and Hill in the UK (Doll & Hill 1950) and Wynder and colleagues in the US (Wynder & Graham 1950). Many clinical studies have since established a strong

Smoking.indb 1 11/03/2016 09:55

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 6 . M & K P u b l i s h i n g .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE AN: 1198404 ; Cope, Graham F..; Smoking : What All Healthcare Professionals Need to Know Account: s8423942.main.ehost

2

Smoking – what all healthcare professionals need to know

3

link with heart disease, lung disease and various forms of cancer, with recent research showing increased susceptibility to infectious diseases, and changes to the immune system, affecting the skin, the eyes, ears and bones. Essentially, smoking harms every organ of the body (Benowitz & Hukkanen 2009) and the evidence linking cigarette smoking and ill health is now compelling.

The cost of smoking-related healthcare In the UK, the cost to the NHS for treatment of smoking-related illnesses was estimated at £2.7 billion in 2006/07 (Callum et al. 2011) and £5.2 billion annually in 2009 (Allender 2009) (see Table 1.1). This includes expenditure on hospital admissions, GP consultations and prescriptions. However, the cost to society as a whole is much higher. This has been estimated at over £13 billion and includes the cost of loss in productivity and increased absenteeism (Nash & Featherstone 2010).

Table 1.1 Financial implications of smoking-related diseases in the UK

Costs and revenues £ (billions)

Estimated cost of treating smoking-related diseases 5.2

Estimated cost of smoking to the UK economy 13

UK tax revenue from tobacco 5.9

Value of tobacco sales in the UK 13

These costs are offset by government revenue from taxes on cigarettes, with the Treasury earning £9.7 billion in revenue from tobacco excise duties in the financial year 2011–2012. This amounts to approximately 2% of total government revenue, including VAT at an estimated £2.6 billion (TMA 2012). The annual value of tobacco sales in the UK was £13 billion over the same period (Walker 2013), but the overall sales of manufactured cigarettes fell by 6.4%. This equates to an estimated 2.5 billion fewer cigarettes per year (Hegarty 2013).

In recent years, the greater prevalence of smoking in lower socio-economic classes has led to a decline in the sale of premium brands and a corresponding growth in economy-priced cigarettes and roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes. Lower-priced brands account for one in three cigarettes sold in the UK (Hegarty 2013), and sales of loose tobacco for hand assembly are worth £1.9 billion annually.

The relative risks of roll-your-own cigarettes RYO cigarettes have significant additional health consequences because they have higher tar yields, compared with manufactured brands. RYO produce more tar than the current maximum level of 15mg allowed for manufactured cigarettes. Filters are frequently not included in RYO, and this has been shown to increase the amount of tar inhaled by 50%. Consequently, the nicotine yield is also higher, with 70% of RYO cigarettes producing a nicotine yield above the permitted level of 0.7mg per cigarette (Darrall & Figgins 1998).

Smoking.indb 2 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

What is continuing professional development (CPD) and why do we do it?

3

The facts about smoking

Studies have shown that people who use RYO are generally more addicted to nicotine and are less likely to wish to stop smoking. Some highly addicted smokers use RYO because it gives them more control over the nicotine ‘dose’ (Young et al. 2006). In the past, RYO smokers were generally older working-class men, but recent figures show that 55% of users are now women (Gallus et al. 2014). One-third of poorer smokers use RYO because they are cheaper, with one study reporting that about 38% of all RYO tobacco smoked in the UK is smuggled in (HMRC 2012).

The components of tobacco smoke Cigarettes are manufactured using leaves from the tobacco plant (Nicotiana tabacum), blending from two main leaf varieties: yellowish ‘bright’ Virginia tobacco, which contains approximately 3% nicotine; and ‘burley’ tobacco which has a higher nicotine content at about 4%. This is dried, fragmented and mixed with additives to make the tobacco products more palatable. The additives include humectants to prolong the product’s shelf life, sugars to make the smoke seem milder and easier to inhale and flavourings such as chocolate and vanilla.

When the cigarette is lit, the process of burning produces temperatures ranging from 400 to 580°C at the smouldering tip, which increase to 700°C when the cigarette is drawn. This produces a wide range of chemicals derived from the organic leaves, the additives and the paper.

The smoke produced is a complex mixture of chemical compounds, which is either sidestream smoke from the burning tip, or mainstream smoke that is drawn into the mouth and exhaled (see Table 1.2). These chemicals include volatile organic chemicals, gases and particulates, which form an aerosol consisting of carbon-containing polymers with adsorbed heavy metals. Analysis has identified 2,256 different smoke components, with 98 found to be dangerous to human health (Talhout et al. 2011).

The link between tobacco smoke and cancer (specifically lung cancer) has been known for over sixty years. Analysis has found 55 known carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Of these, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the most common, with 20 different types having been identified (Hecht 1999).

Table 1.2 Chemical constituents of cigarette smoke

Number of different chemicals identified 2,256

chemicals dangerous to human health 96

Number of different carcinogens identified 55

Types of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 20

(Based on Talhout et al. 2011.)

Smoking.indb 3 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

4

Smoking – what all healthcare professionals need to know

5

Free radicals Tobacco smoke is a mixture of a particulate phase and a gaseous phase, with the former including nicotine and ‘tar’, which includes the carcinogens. But also present are other chemicals, which induce cancer. These are generally referred to as free radicals or reactive oxygen species (ROS). They are highly charged, highly reactive forms of oxygen that can damage large molecules (such as proteins, lipids and DNA) in the delicate mucosal tissue of the buccal cavity and lungs. They also circulate in the bloodstream, causing structural and mutagenic changes (Maskos et al. 2005).

The gaseous phase of tobacco smoke includes carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and small molecular weight free radicals. Some of these chemicals have marked irritant and inflammatory properties and many have been shown to cause cancer (IARC 2004). The gaseous phase contains about 500 volatile organic and inorganic compounds, while the particulate phase consists of fine particles that can penetrate deep into the small, terminal spaces of the lungs or alveoli (IARC 2004).

Differing levels of toxins The tar component is regarded as the most harmful (carcinogenic) element in tobacco smoke. Since the 1950s, the tar content of cigarettes has fallen from an average of 30mg to 11mg per cigarette. Under current regulations, the tar and nicotine yields must be displayed on packets, along with upper limits of nicotine and CO (DH 2009).

To reduce the harmful effects of tar in cigarettes, tobacco manufacturers developed low-tar cigarettes or ‘lites’. However, the main difference with these is not the tobacco content but the filters. These ‘low-tar’ filters are manufactured with ventilation holes near the junction of the filter and tobacco. Under standard smoking machine conditions, these holes allow air to be drawn into the mouth along with the cigarette smoke, thus diluting the concentration of nicotine and toxins on the filter. When the filter is analysed for tar and nicotine, it shows a lower yield.

People frequently turn to low-tar cigarettes, regarding them as a ‘healthier’ alternative. However, smokers often find these cigarettes less satisfying and insufficient for their nicotine needs. They therefore subconsciously draw on the cigarette harder, to compensate for the lack of nicotine, and this actually increases their intake of CO. Many smokers soon realise that inserting the cigarette further into their mouth, or blocking the ventilation holes with their fingers, improves the taste and level of satisfaction. However, this neutralises the mechanisms used to lower the tar, and the ‘lite’ cigarette effectively reverts back to a ‘normal’ form (Hoffmann & Hoffmann 1997). Recent evidence has shown that low-tar cigarettes are not well tolerated by smokers and do not help them quit (Benowitz et al. 2015).

While the ‘tar’ content adds to the smoker’s sensation, along with the particulate matter and gases, by far the main concern of the smoker is the ingestion of nicotine.

Smoking.indb 4 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

What is continuing professional development (CPD) and why do we do it?

5

The facts about smoking

Nicotine Nicotine is an alkaloid thought to be present in the tobacco plant as a natural insecticide, but it has a direct effect on the nerves in the human brain and nervous system, inducing addiction, compulsion and reward.

A small amount of nicotine from cigarette smoke is absorbed through the mucosa of the mouth, but most of it is absorbed through the lung lining. Nicotine is water soluble and it readily dissolves into the fluid lining of the alveoli and bronchioles. Acidifying the tobacco with additives (thus lowering the pH) increases its solubility and therefore the rate at which it is absorbed through the lungs. Tobacco used in pipes, cigars and smokeless tobacco is more alkaline, which aids absorption through the mouth and buccal mucosa (Henningfield et al. 2004).

Once it has passed through the mucosal epithelium, nicotine is absorbed into the bloodstream and quickly enters the arterial circulation and diffuses readily throughout the body. It has been estimated that nicotine reaches the brain in about 10 seconds; there it binds to specific nicotinic receptors on the surface of the nerve cells or neurons (Benowitz 1999).

Nicotinic receptors Nicotinic receptors form part of the parasympathetic nervous system, which is sometimes described as the ‘feed or breed’ or ‘rest and repose’ system, which controls physiological functions such as eating, salivation, lacrimation, urination, digestion and sexual arousal. (It is opposite to the ‘fight or flight’ activities of the sympathetic nervous system, which involve adrenalin.) This may help to explain why smokers often use cigarettes after a meal or sex.

The usual neurotransmitter for the parasympathetic system is acetylcholine (ACh) and the receptors are referred to as acetylcholine receptors (AChR) or cholinergic receptors. Those that are specifically sensitive to nicotine are called nicotinic cholinergic receptors (nAChR). Nicotine stimulation of receptors in the brain has been implicated in a variety of brain functions, including learning, memory formation and reward.

Nicotine metabolism Nicotine is rapidly broken down in the body, with an elimination half-life (time taken to break down to 50% of the original amount) varying from 1 to 4 hours, and averaging about 3 hours. However, there are considerable individual differences in nicotine concentrations in the plasma. These differences may be, at least in part, due to genetic factors but may also be caused by variations in the method and efficiency of smoking, or ‘smoke topography’. It is also well known that smokers can manipulate their intake of nicotine to serve their varying needs.

Nicotine in the bloodstream is rapidly and extensively metabolised by its first pass through the liver, producing a range of 20 different metabolites or breakdown products, the most important of which is cotinine (Kyerematen & Vesell 1991). The elimination half-life of cotinine is much longer than that of nicotine, at about 18 hours, and it is excreted over a much longer period of time. Whereas

Smoking.indb 5 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

6

Smoking – what all healthcare professionals need to know

7

nicotine remains in the body for about six hours, cotinine can be detected in the urine for about three days (Dempsey et al. 2004).

Nicotine metabolism is influenced by many factors, including racial origin and physiological status. Black smokers have been found to have higher cotinine levels than white Caucasians, while during pregnancy nicotine metabolite levels increase in the last period of gestation. These variations suggest the metabolism of nicotine is determined physiologically as well as genetically (Messina et al. 1997).

Smoke topography The smoker’s individual need for nicotine will determine their method of smoking; and this is to some extent governed by their smoke topography. This refers to the frequency and volume of smoke inhaled, the number of puffs, and the individual cigarette duration and inter-puff interval, with the latter being an important predictor of nicotine blood levels (Bridges et al. 1990).

Although the smoke topography is relatively consistent in a given individual, the method of smoking will change if the nicotine or tar content of the cigarette brand varies. Studies have shown that smokers compensate when they change to a low-tar or low-nicotine brand, or smoke fewer cigarettes, so as to extract more nicotine from each one (Hammond et al. 2005). Users of low nicotine yield cigarettes smoke nearly three times more intensively than those of medium or high yielding cigarettes in order to achieve the same level of plasma nicotine (Matsumoto et al. 2013).

It is very difficult to measure nicotine intake because we have to take into account so many different factors: the different cigarette brands available, smoke topography, depth of inhalation and nicotine metabolism.

The main parameters for variation of the smoking dose are:

● Number of cigarettes smoked per day

● Selection of brand according to nominal smoke yield

● Number of puffs per cigarette

● Puff interval (puff frequency)

● Puff volume

● Duration of puff

● Flow rate during puffing

● Amount of smoking expelled from the mouth (mouth spill)

● Depth of inhalation

● Duration of inhalation

● Butt length

● Blocking of filter vents.

Smoking.indb 6 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

What is continuing professional development (CPD) and why do we do it?

7

The facts about smoking

Assessing smoking behaviour Historically, the easiest way to assess smoking habits was simply to ask the smoker about their daily cigarette usage. However, this approach – while providing some useful information – tends to be unreliable and subject to bias. Cigarette smoking is frequently defined as ‘smoking at least one cigarette a day for a year’. But even anonymous questionnaires will record about 5% of cigarette users regarding themselves as non-smokers because they believe that smoking only one or two cigarettes a day (or smoking just at weekends) is not really smoking. These people are called ‘non- identifying smokers’ and they represent about 12% of tobacco consumers (Leas et al. 2015). The percentage of denial increases according to how much pressure the smoker feels under not to smoke, especially if they believe that their medical or surgical treatment may be compromised if they admit to smoking (Payne & Southern 2006).

Nevertheless, sophisticated questionnaires have been developed to assess levels of nicotine addiction. For instance, the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) includes questions about the time to first cigarette in the morning (TTFC) and the level of difficulty experienced when not being able to smoke (Fagerstrom 1978). Nicotine dependence is recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a medical condition and such questionnaires are widely acknowledged as the best way of assessing the level of nicotine dependency and the smoker’s ability to abstain from tobacco (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3 Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (Heatherton et al. 1991)

1 How soon after you wake up do you smoke your first cigarette?

After 60 minutes 0

31–60 minutes 1

6–30 minutes 2

Within 5 minutes 3

2 Do you find it difficult to refrain from smoking in places where it is forbidden?

No 0

Yes 1

3 Which cigarette would you most hate to give up? The first in the morning 1

Any other 0

4 How many cigarettes do you smoke per day? 10 or less 0

11–20 1

21–30 2

31 or more 3

Smoking.indb 7 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

8

Smoking – what all healthcare professionals need to know

9

5 Do you smoke more frequently during the first hours after waking than the rest of the day?

No 0

Yes 1

6 Do you smoke even if you are so ill that you are in bed most of the day?

No 0

Yes 1

Add up the total score to calculate dependence on nicotine:

0–2 Very low dependence

3–4 Low dependence,

5 Medium dependence

6–7 High dependence

8–10 Very high dependence

Although they are widely used, there are still problems with smoking questionnaires because many subjects give false information, due to guilt or embarrassment. An alternative to questioning is the use of biochemical measurements (or biomarkers) to determine the concentration of tobacco products in the breath, blood or other biological fluids.

Biochemical testing The first biochemical tests for smoking were developed by the physiologist Claude Bernard (1813– 1878). He discovered that smokers excreted large amounts of thiocyanate (SCN), a breakdown product of hydrogen cyanide, in their urine.

Many studies have since found a close correlation between daily cigarette consumption and SCN levels (Scherer 2006) and the SCN test has the advantage of measuring smoking habit over about 10–14 days (Bliss & O’Connell 1984). On the other hand, SCN levels have been found to be influenced by body weight and the ingestion of different foodstuffs. For example, people who consume nuts, pulses, brassica vegetables and cow’s milk may end up giving false positive results. Consequently, this biomarker has largely fallen out of favour (Larramendy et al. 2004).

Another (still widely used) biomarker is the concentration of carboxyhaemoglobin (COHg), either in plasma or as carbon monoxide in expired-air (eCO). Carbon monoxide is a gas generated by burning organic material such as tobacco leaves. It is inhaled and permeates through the lining of the lung into the bloodstream. CO has a high affinity for haemoglobin, (approximately 240 times greater than oxygen), so it reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. Following circulation, it returns to the lungs where the COHg dissociates, releasing the CO back into the breath, where, using suitable hand-held equipment, it can be measured.

Smoking.indb 8 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

What is continuing professional development (CPD) and why do we do it?

9

The facts about smoking

Table 1.4 Different biomarkers for tobacco intake

Name Sample Techniques used Advantages Disadvantages

Thiocyanate (ScN)

Saliva or urine

Laboratory Long half-life (several days)

Results interference from foodstuffs and other sources

carboxy- haemoglobin (cO)

Expired-air (ecO)

Point of care testing Easy to perform; good correlation with cigarette consumption

Short half-life; smoking assessed over 6–8 hours

Nicotine Saliva or urine

Laboratory Specific to nicotine intake

Short half-life; smoking assessed over several hours

cotinine Plasma, saliva or urine

Laboratory ‘Gold standard’; good correlation with cigarette consumption

Expensive and time consuming; requires sample storage and transport

cotinine Saliva or urine

Point of care testing Immediate, easy to perform; inexpensive

More expensive than ecO; detects non- smokers on nicotine replacement therapy

The presence of CO in expired-air has been used for many years as a means of monitoring smoking (Eymer et al. 1936), and studies have shown that eCO correlates well with plasma levels and cigarette consumption (Andersson & Moller 2010). The most widely used technology to measure eCO is an electrochemical detector in a hand-held monitor. The smoker is instructed to take a deep breath and hold it for a minimum of 15 seconds, after which they should expel all their breath slowly to achieve an end-tidal breath sample, as it is the last air in the lungs and speed of expulsion that is critical to the analysis (Raiff et al. 2010). The result is usually shown in parts per million (ppm), with a usual cut-off of 10ppm to distinguish smokers from non-smokers (Brose et al. 2013).

Recently, it has been argued that this threshold should be reduced to improve the sensitivity (number of true positives) and, more importantly, the specificity (number of true negatives) that are obtained. This is because the short half-life of CO allows many smokers to abstain from smoking for just a few hours, perhaps overnight, and then the test result will be negative. One study showed that 40% of those who had smoked within the last 24 hours had an eCO level equal to or less than 9ppm (Perkins et al. 2013). Consequently, a number of lower thresholds have been proposed, ranging from 6 to 3ppm, but 5ppm seems to provide the optimal cut-off to detect smoking (Perkins et al. 2013). It has been suggested that the level be further reduced in pregnancy to 4ppm (Bailey 2013).

Smoking.indb 9 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

10

Smoking – what all healthcare professionals need to know

11

Expired-air CO monitoring is widely used and recommended for the assessment of smoking habit in routine clinical practice and in Stop Smoking Services (Brose et al. 2013). This is because it is relatively inexpensive and non-invasive and it is easy to carry out the measurements. However, there are drawbacks to using the standard protocol, in that CO can be inhaled from non-cigarette environmental sources, such as traffic fumes and faulty domestic heaters (Kotz 2012). This is a frequent occurrence, as CO poisoning is the second most common cause of accidental death in the UK, with 4,000 people needing treatment for CO poisoning each year. Other interfering conditions include lactose intolerance and excessive intestinal bacteria. Ideally, a biomarker for smoking should be specific to a single component of tobacco, and the obvious component to measure is nicotine.

Nicotine as a biomarker Sophisticated laboratory techniques can be used to identify, monitor and measure nicotine in bodily fluids (Russell et al. 1976). Nicotine level directly relates to tobacco use and has been found to be more specific than CO monitoring. But, again, the short half-life of nicotine (approximately 3 hours) means that this point measurement will only indicate short-term intake of about 6 to 8 hours. As nicotine enters the circulation, it permeates all the cells of the body so it can be detected in hair and toenails. Because these grow at such a slow rate, analysis can show an individual’s smoking habit over a period of many months. However, this technique is very expensive (Kim et al. 2014).

Cotinine as a biomarker Cotinine is the best-known biomarker for nicotine intake, and is generally regarded as the preferred analyte to assess smoking habit by measurement in plasma, saliva and urine (Harke & Fleisch 1973). This is because cotinine is specific to nicotine intake and it has a long retention time (with a half-life of 18 hours) (Dhar 2004). Cotinine therefore provides a biomarker for nicotine intake over a period of 2 or 3 days.

Cotinine levels are closely correlated with smoking status, daily cigarette consumption (Benowitz & Hukkanen 2009), and measures of nicotine dependence, as determined by the FTND score, especially with time to first cigarette and smoking level in the first hours of the day (Fu et al. 2012).

The laboratory techniques used to measure cotinine are many and varied but they generally demand expensive, sophisticated equipment and highly trained staff. Therefore, laboratory cotinine testing is not widely available. It is also time consuming, requiring sample preparation, storage and transportation, and consequently expensive and so it is only really suitable for research projects (Figueiredo et al. 2007). For assessment of smoking habits in clinical settings where rapid and simple technology is required, point of care testing (poc) is used.

Cotinine testing has been incorporated into simple immunoassays, like pregnancy tests, to show a line in a viewing window, indicating the presence or absence of cotinine in urine or saliva. These are inexpensive tests and are suitable when just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or qualitative answer to nicotine intake is required.

Smoking.indb 10 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

What is continuing professional development (CPD) and why do we do it?

11

The facts about smoking

An alternative test utilises a colorimetric assay, in which saliva or urine samples that are positive for cotinine will produce a colour change, with the depth of colour being related to nicotine intake. These tests can provide semi-quantitative (Karnes et al. 2001) or quantitative results (Cope et al. 1996). They are generally inexpensive and offer an acceptable approach to give rapid information about smoking habit. They can be carried out by nursing or technical staff, enabling immediate decisions to be made about patients’ care (Payne & Southern 2006).

Summary of key points ● Tobacco smoke contains thousands of toxic substances, including carcinogens.

● Nicotine is the addictive substance present in tobacco smoke.

● Highly reactive free radicals are present in high concentration in cigarette smoke.

● Smoke topography refers to the variables in smoking habit, which determine nicotine intake.

● Questionnaires are widely used to assess smoking habit and levels of dependency but they do not produce reliable results.

● Expired-air carbon monoxide and cotinine can be used to measure smoking habit more accurately.

References Allender, S. (2009). The burden of smoking-related ill health in the UK. Tobacco Control. 18 (4), 262–67.

Andersson, M.F. & Moller, A.M. (2010). Assessment of carbon monoxide values in smokers: a comparison of carbon monoxide in expired air and carboxyhaemoglobin in arterial blood. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 27 (9), 812–18.

Bailey, B.A. (2013). Using expired air carbon monoxide to determine smoking status during pregnancy: Preliminary identification of an appropriately sensitive and specific cut-point. Addictive Behaviour. 38 (10), 2547–50.

Benowitz, N.L. (1999). Nicotine addiction. Primary Care. 26 (3), 611–31.

Benowitz, N.L. & Hukkanen, J.J. (2009). Nicotine chemistry, metabolism, kinetics and biomarkers. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. 192, 29–60.

Benowitz, N.L., Nardone, N. & Hatsukami, D.K. et al. (2015). Biochemical estimation of noncompliance with smoking of very low nicotine content cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 24 (2), 331–35.

Bliss, R.E. & O’Connell, K.A. (1984). Problems with thiocyanate as an index of smoking status: a critical review with suggestions for improving the usefulness of biochemical measures in smoking cessation research. Health Psychology. 3 (6), 563–81.

Bridges, R.B., Combs, J.G. & Humble, J.W. et al. (1990). Puffing topography as a determinant of smoke exposure. Pharmacology and Biochemical Behaviour. 37 (1), 29–39.

Brose, L.S., Tombor, I. & Shahab, L. et al. (2013). The effect of reducing the threshold for carbon monoxide validation of smoking abstinence – Evidence from the English Stop Smoking Services. Addictive Behaviour. 38 (10), 2529–31.

Callum, C., Boyle, S. & Sandford, A. (2011). Estimating the cost of smoking to the NHS in England and the impact of declining prevalence. Health Economics Policy and Law. 6 (4), 489–508.

Cope, G., Nayyar, P. & Holder, R. et al. (1996). A simple near-patient test for nicotine and its metabolites in urine to assess smoking habit. Clinica Chimica Acta. 256 (2), 135–49.

Smoking.indb 11 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

12

Smoking – what all healthcare professionals need to know

13

Darrall, K.G. & Figgins, J.A. (1998). Roll-your-own smoke yields: theoretical and practical aspects. Tobacco Control. 7 (2), 168–75.

Dempsey, D., Tutka, P. & Jacob, P. III et al. (2004) Nicotine metabolite ratio as an index of cytochrome P450 2A6 metabolic activity. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 76 (1), 64–72.

Department of Health (DH) (2009). Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/ab/scoth/dh_096609 (accessed 2 March 2015).

Dhar, P. (2004). Measuring tobacco smoke exposure: quantifying nicotine/cotinine concentration in biological samples by colorimetry, chromatography and immunoassay methods. Journal of Pharmaceutical Biomedical Analysis. 35 (1), 155–68.

Doll, R. & Hill, A.B. (1950). Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. British Medical Journal. 2 (4682), 739–48.

Eymer, H., Fischer, A.W. & Schneider, K. et al. (1936). Zur Frage der Kohlenoxydintoxikation bei starken Rauchern. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 62, 494–97.

Fagerstrom, K.O. (1978). Measuring degree of physical-dependence to tobacco smoking with reference to individualization of treatment. Addictive Behaviour. 3 (3–4), 235–41.

Figueiredo, V.C., Szklo, M. & Szklo, A.S. et al. (2007). Determinants of salivary cotinine level: a population based study in Brazil. Revista de Saúde Pública. 41 (6), 954–62.

Fu, M., Martinez-Sanchez, J.M. & Agudo, A. et al. (2012). Nicotine dependence and salivary cotinine concentration in daily smokers. European Journal of Cancer Prevention. 21 (1), 96–102.

Gallus, S., Lugo, A. & Ghislandi, S. et al. (2014). Roll-your-own cigarettes in Europe: use, weight and implications for fiscal policies. European Journal of Cancer Prevention. 23 (3), 186–92.

Hammond, D., Fong, G.T. & Cummings, K.M. et al. (2005). Smoking topography, brand switching, and nicotine delivery: Results from an in vivo study. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 14 (6), 1370–75.

Harke, H.P. & Fleisch, B. (1973). Investigations on urinary excretion of nicotine and cotinine in cigarette smokers. Arzneimittelforschung. 23 (12), 1822–24.

Heatherton, T.F., Kozlowski, L.T., Frecker, R.C. & Fagerstrom, K.O. (1991). The Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence – a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. British Journal of Addiction. 86 (9), 1119–27.

Hecht, S.S. (1999). Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 91 (14), 1194–210.

Hegarty, R. (2013). Going up in smoke? The Grocer. 16 February 2013. http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fmcg/tobacco/tobacco-going-upin-smoke/236545.article (accessed 2 March 2015).

Henningfield, J.E., Pankow, J.F. & Garrett, B.E. (2004). Ammonia and other chemical base tobacco additives and cigarette nicotine delivery: issues and research needs. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 6 (2), 199–205.

Hoffmann, D. & Hoffmann, I. (1997). The changing cigarette, 1950–1995. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 50 (4), 307–64.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2004). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. Journal of Addiction. 83, 1119–27.

Karnes, H.T., James, J.R. & March, C. et al. (2001). Assessment of nicotine uptake from cigarette smoke: comparison of a colorimetric test strip (NicCheck I) and gas chromatography/mass selective detector. Biomarkers. 6 (6), 388–99.

Kim, S., Apelberg, B.J. & Avila-Tang, E. et al. (2014). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 11 (8), 8368– 82.

Kotz, D. (2012). Possible reasons for elevated carbon monoxide levels in self-reported ex-smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 14 (8), 900–901.

Kyerematen, G.A. & Vesell, E.S. (1991). Metabolism of nicotine. Drug Metabolism Reviews. 23 (1–2), 3–41.

Larramendy, C., Divine, C. & Asnafi-Farhang, S. et al. (2004). Usefulness of biological markers in evaluation of smoking. Pathologie Biologie. 52 (3), 164–72

Leas, E.C., Zablocki, R.W., Edland, S.D. & Al-Delaimy, W.K. (2015). Smokers who report smoking but do not consider themselves smokers: a phenomenon in need of further attention. Tobacco Control. 24 (4), 400–403.

Maskos, Z., Khachatryan, L. & Cueto, R. et al. (2005). Radicals from the pyrolysis of tobacco. Energy Fuels. 19 (3), 791–99.

Matsumoto, M., Inaba, Y. & Yamaguchi, I. et al. (2013). Smoking topography and biomarkers of exposure among Japanese smokers: associations with cigarette emissions obtained using machine smoking protocols. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine. 18 (2), 95–103.

Smoking.indb 12 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

What is continuing professional development (CPD) and why do we do it?

13

The facts about smoking

Messina, E.S., Tyndale, R.F. & Sellers, E.M. (1997). A major role for CYP2A6 in nicotine C-oxidation by human liver microsomes. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 282 (3), 1608–1614.

Nash, R. & Featherstone, H. (2010). Cough Up: Balancing tobacco income and costs in society. Policy Exchange. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/cough-up-balancing-tobacco-income-and-costs-in-society (accessed 2 March 2015).

Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OLS) (2012). Smoking habits amongst adults. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ghs/opinions-and- lifestyle-survey/smoking-habits-amongst-adults--2012/rpt-opinions-and-lifestyle-survey---smoking-habits-amongst-adults--2012.html (accessed 2 March 2015).

Payne, C.E. & Southern, S.J. (2006). Urinary point-of-care test for smoking in the pre-operative assessment of patients undergoing elective plastic surgery. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. 59 (11), 1156–61.

Perkins, K.A., Karelitz, J.L. & Jao, N.C. (2013). Optimal carbon monoxide criteria to confirm 24-hour smoking abstinence. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 15 (5), 978–82.

Raiff, B.R., Faix, C. & Turturici, M., et al. (2010). Breath carbon monoxide output is affected by speed of emptying the lungs: Implications for laboratory and smoking cessation research. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 12 (8), 834–38.

Russell, M.A., Feyerabend, C. & Cole, P.V/ (1976). Plasma nicotine levels after cigarette smoking and chewing nicotine gum. British Medical Journal. 1 (6017), 1043–46.

Scherer, G. (2006). Carboxyhemoglobin and thiocyanate as biomarkers of exposure to carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide in tobacco smoke. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology. 58 (2–3), 101–24.

Talhout, R., Schulz, T. & Florek, E. et al. (2011). Hazardous compounds in tobacco smoke. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 8 (2), 613–28.

TMA (2013). Tax revenue from tobacco. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/ (accessed 21 December 2015).

Wald, N. & Nicolaides-Bouman, A. (1991). UK Smoking Statistics. 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walker, G. (2013). Tobacco: Smooth talking. http://www.conveniencestore.co.uk/advice/products-in-depth/tobacco-smooth-talking/348336.article (accessed 2 March 2015).

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2015). Health topics – tobacco. http://www.who.int/topics/tobacco/en/ (accessed 2 March 2015).

Wynder, E.L. & Graham, E.A. (1950). Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in bronchiogenic carcinoma: a study of 684 proved cases. Journal of the American Medical Association. 143 (4), 329–36.

Young, D., Borland, R. & Hammond, D. et al. (2006). Prevalence and attributes of roll-your-own smokers in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control. 15 (3), 76–82.

Smoking.indb 13 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Smoking.indb 14 11/03/2016 09:55

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/14/2021 1:49 AM via LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use