Uptake of smoke constituents by UK cigarette smokers A cross-sectional biomarker study Gunther Peters , Thomas Pienemann, Wolfram Roeper Imperial Tobacco Germany JOINT STUDY GROUPS MEETING SMOKE SCIENCE AND PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY November 2008, Shanghai, China Content • Background • Objectives • Study Design • Field Work • Results • Conclusions SSPT 51 2 Background Biomarker studies are the most often recommended method to assess the exposure of smokers to smoke constituents [IoM & LSRO reports]. The knowledge about representative smoke exposure data is fundamental for the assessment of potential reduced exposure products. Because Imperial Tobacco is the leading manufacturer in the United Kingdom it was decided in 2005 to conduct such a study. The clinical trials were carried out between April and December 2006 and analytical evaluation was completed in summer 2007. SSPT 51 3 Background – Exposure Schema tobacco smoke human smoke yield per cigarette (yield in-use) content or precursor in tobacco man (human intake & uptake) varies with individual smoking behaviour daily smoke intake daily smoke uptake machine smoke yield per cigarette varies with individual behaviour, e.g. daily consumption assessed by biomarker measurement in blood or excretion in 24-h-urine varies with product properties & smoking regimen mean values from a sufficient number of study subjects Main Objective Measure the levels of selected biomarkers of cigarette smoke exposure in blood and urine samples from regular-smoking & non-smoking healthy subjects and compare between smokers of brands with different tar levels and non-smokers SSPT 51 5 Secondary Objectives • Compare levels of biomarkers with regards to demographic criteria, e.g. gender. • Evaluate smoke exposure from collected smoked filter tips. • Measure chemical and biological properties of the most frequently used brands to compare results from machine smoking with smoke exposure data and levels of biomarkers. • Assess a device for measuring CO in exhaled breath and compare with COHb levels in blood. • Measure and evaluate smoking topography data. SSPT 51 6 Study Design Cross-sectional representation of the general UK smoking population of factory-made cigarettes (FMC) at one point in time (2006) Group A – smokers of 8-10 mg tar level brands Group B – smokers of 5-7 mg tar level brands Group C – smokers of 1-4 mg tar level brands <population of tar groups by market share> Group NS – non-smokers (control group) Gender split 50/50 +/- 10, age > 21, mean age 40 +/- 5, at 2 recruitment sites No targets set for social criteria or ethnic origin Study protocol approved by an ethics committee SSPT 51 7 Study Design – Targets for study subjects ISO tar*) share**) target actual Group A 8 – 10 75,0 % 600 581 Group B 5–7 22.5 % 180 207 Group C 1–4 2.5 % 20 38 Smokers total 100 % 800 826 100 103 Non-smokers *) Classification by declared figures on packs, a few (<20) imported brands were classified by measured tar values. **) Average UK markets shares 2005/2006 SSPT 51 8 Study Design – Selected demographic data group (tar level) A (8 - 10 mg) B (5 - 7 mg) C (1 - 4 mg) mean age (years) gender split male female total no. of subjects 35 343 238 581 31 112 95 207 41 20 18 38 smokers 34 475 351 826 non-smokers 33 61 42 103 SSPT 51 9 Study Design - Selection of Biomarkers Biomarker of exposure Body fluid Nicotine + 5 metabolites urine NNAL urine 1-OHP Smoke Precurser, related Unique to phase smoke constituent tobacco Particu LSRO category Nicotine Yes A P NNK (TSNA) Yes A urine P Pyrene/PaHs No A MHBMA, DHBMA urine Vapour 1,3-Butadiene No A/B SPMA urine V Benzene No A 3-HPMA urine V Acrolein No A CoHb blood V CO No A Acetonitrile blood V Acetonitrile No B Thiocyonate blood V Hydrogen cyanide No C SSPT 51 late 10 Field Work – Compliance Checks Smoking and non-smoking compliance checked at screening visit (limits for salivary cotinine & COHb) and cross-checked against biomarker data. Health check at screening visit, e. g. for - bmi limits, pregnancy of female smokers, .. Tar group compliance: Brand identification by consistency check of brand reported, pack-shot and smoked cigarette filter study SSPT 51 11 Field Work CO in exhaled breath analyser Butt collection for smoked filter analysis Consumption data from diary cards SSPT 51 12 Results Biomarker data were analysed using a fixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a mixed model ANOVA. No significant differences were found for demographic criteria, e.g. age and gender. To present • Biomarker levels in smokers and non-smokers • Differences between tar groups • Compare results with published data • Nicotine yield in-use from filter analysis and compare with nicotine uptake SSPT 51 13 Results – Marker levels in smokers & non-smokers unit all smokers (826) non-smokers Nic + 5 metabolites (ur. ex.) mg eq nic./mmol creatinine 1.43 0.0032 447 NNAL (urinary excretion) ng/mmol creat. 22.6 not calc. 102<LOQ (>20) Acetonitrile (blood conc.) ng/ml 80.6 4.0 20,2 SPMA (urinary excretion) ng/mmol creat. 268 24 11,2 COHb (blood saturation) (%) 4.14 1.16 3,6 HPMA (urinary excretion) µg/mmol creat. 192 61 3,1 Thiocyanate (serum conc.) µmol/l 116 39 3,0 Butadiene equiv. calculated µg/mmol creat. 79 32 2,5 biomarker ratio DHBMA (urin. ex.) µg/mmol creat. 345 133 2,6 MHBMA (urin. ex.) µg/mmol creat. 19 14 1,4 1-OHP (urinary excretion) SSPT 51 (103) ng/mmol creat. 42 20 2,1 14 SSPT 51 Co ns Hb HP tio n 1-O ien -E q. ya na te HP MA CO um p Bu t ad Th ioc ni t ri le AL SP MA Ac eto NN Ni c+ 5 Results – Comparison of tar groups 100% 50% A B C NS 0% 15 Results – Comparison with published data Demographic data unit Mean age years Gender split % m/f UK this study GER *) 34.3 29.3 57/43 37/63 Number of study subjects per group (ISO smoke yields) Group A 8 – 10 mg tar 581 0.7 – 1.0 mg N Group B 5 – 7 mg tar 78 207 0.5 – 0.6 mg N Group C 1 – 4 mg tar 0.1 – 0.4 mg N 122 38 66 *) G. Scherer et al., „Relationship between machine-derived smoke yields and biomarkers in cigarette smokers in Germany“, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 47 (2007), 171-183 Results – Comparison with published data marker unit group UK (this study) GER *) NS A B C NS A B C - 15 12 18 - 13.4 11.7 16.8 3.8 28.9 21.7 19.0 2.6 17.1 15.9 20.7 consumption /d CO ex ppm Nic+5** mg - 14.3 8.7 9.7 - 11.5 10.6 12.8 NNAL** µg - 0.22 0.17 0.12 - 0.37 0.27 0.14 HPMA** mg 0.71 1.80 1.36 1.41 0.34 1.33 1.32 0.94 SPMA** µg 0.32 2.54 1.80 2.83 0.29 2.00 1.90 1.55 1-OHP** µg 0.24 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.17 *) A.a.O. **) total in 24h-urine Results – Comparison with published data Nicotine excretion per cigarette UK* GER** Group A 0,95 mg 0,86 mg Group B 0,73 mg 0,91 mg Group C 0,54 mg 0,76 mg Nicotine +5 metabolites in 24h-urine / daily consumption *) this study: mean of ratios **) A.a.O.: ratios of means Results – Filter analysis Smoked filter tips collected from all smokers A B C all 1,4 1,2 1,14 1,05 1 Calibration curves from top 14 brands: group A: 7, B: 5, C: 2, 0,85 0,8 0,78 0,6 > 75% of UK market, mean calibration curves 0,4 used for each group 0,2 0 mg nic/cig. mg nicotine / cigarette Results – Comparison of mouth level nicotine exposure from filter analysis with 24h-urine nic+5 markers per cigarette 1,20 ‘intake’ ‘uptake’ 1,00 84% 0,80 83% 85% 0,60 0,40 70% A B C all 0,20 0,00 filter analysis SSPT 51 nic. marker 20 Background – Nicotine Exposure tobacco/product smoking topography tobacco content ~2% + design properties e.g. filter retention smoke man (human intake & uptake) human smoke yield per cigarette (mg) A: 1.14 B: 0.85 C: 0.78 all: 1.05 daily cons. A: 15 B: 12 C: 18 all:14 ? Design model machine smoke yield per cigarette mean of top 14 brands ISO: 0.8 Intense: 2.2 ? daily intake (mg) A: 17.0 B: 10.2 C: 14.1 All: 15.2 uptake factor A:0.84 B:0.85 C:0.70 all:0.83 daily uptake (mg nic eq.) A: 14.3 B: 8.7 C: 9.7 all: 12.6 Conclusions • Clear differences between smokers and non-smokers for most markers. • No significant demographic differences, e.g. gender and age. • Ranking of marker levels in tar groups: A > C > B; daily consumption C > A > B. • Nicotine uptake correlates with smoke yields from smoked filter analysis. • Smoke exposure is higher in comparison to ISO smoke yields but significantly lower than indicated by intense yields. SSPT 51 22 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my co-authors and our partners from Covance and ABF for their contributions and fruitful discussions. Thank you for your attention SSPT 51 23
© Copyright 2024