Abstract
Data for urine cotinine and hydroxycotinine became available for the first time in the 2013–2014 cycle of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey administered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cutoffs to classify smokers and nonsmokers for both cotinine and hydroxycotinine for US adults aged ≥ 20 years were developed by using receiver operating characteristic curve methodology. The optimality criterion used to determine cutoffs simultaneously maximized both specificity and sensitivity. Cutoffs were determined for the total population, males, females, non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic Asians. Cutoffs for both cotinine and hydroxycotinine were determined with a minimum sensitivity of 95.5% and with a minimum specificity of 95.4%. For the total population, cutoff for urine cotinine was 91.7 ng/mL estimated with a specificity as well as a sensitivity of 97.1%. The cutoff for the total population for urine hydroxycotinine was 128.0 ng/mL estimated with a specificity as well as a sensitivity of 96.5%. The order in which cutoffs were observed for cotinine was non-Hispanic blacks (283.0 ng/mL) > non-Hispanic whites (111.0 ng/mL) > males (109.0 ng/mL) > females (91.7 ng/mL) > total population (91.7 ng/mL) > Hispanics (20.8 ng/mL) > non-Hispanic Asians (7.39 ng/mL). The order in which cutoffs were observed for hydroxycotinine was non-Hispanic blacks (530.0 ng/mL) > non-Hispanic whites (180.0 ng/mL) > females (97.0 ng/mL) > total population (96.5 ng/mL) > males (95.9 ng/mL) > Hispanics (20.6 ng/mL) > non-Hispanic Asians (13.8 ng/mL). Thus, the largest cutoffs were observed for non-Hispanic blacks and the lowest cutoffs were observed for non-Hispanic Asians.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data used in this research are in public domain and can be obtained free of charge from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes.htm.
References
Benowitz NL (1983) The use of biologic fluids in assessing tobacco smoke composition. In: Measurement in the analysis and treatment of smoking behavior; NIDA Research Monograph No. 48. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, USA Available at https://archives.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/monograph48.pdf
Benowitz NL, Bernert JT, Caraballo RS, Holiday DB, Wang J (2009) Optimal serum cotinine levels for distinguishing cigarette smokers and nonsmokers within different racial/ethnic groups in the United States between 1999 and 2004. Am J of Epidemiol 169:236–248. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn301
Campo L, Polledri E, Bechtold P, Gatti G, Ranzi A, Lauriola P, Goldoni CA, Bertazzi PA, Fustinoni S (2016) Determinants of active and environmental exposure to tobacco smoke and upper reference value of urinary cotinine in not exposed individuals. Environ Res 148:154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.029
Caraballo RS, Giovino GA, Pechacek TF, Mowery PD (2001) Factors associated with discrepancies between self-reports on cigarette smoking and measured serum cotinine levels among persons aged 17 years or older: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. Am J Epidemiol 153(8):807–814
Caraballo RS, Giovino GA, Pechacek TF (2004) Self-reported cigarette smoking vs. serum cotinine among U.S. adolescents. Nicotine Tob Res 6(1):19–25
Chen C-I, Burton T, Baker CL, Mastey V, Mannino D (2010) Recent trends in exposure to secondhand smoke in the United States population. BMC Public Health 10:359. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-359
Domino EE, Hombach E, Demana T (1993) Nicotine content of common vegetables. New Eng J Med 329(6):437. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619
Goniewicz ML, Havel CM, Peng MW, Jacob P 3rd, Dempsey D, Yu L, Zielinska-Danch W, Koszowski B, Czogala J, Sobczak A, Benowitz NL (2009) Elimination kinetics of the tobacco-specific biomarker and lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18(12):3421–3425
Jain RB (2015) Use of total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol as an independent biomarker to classify smoking status. Toxicol Environ Chem 97:1422–1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2015.1093130
Jain RB (2016a) Use of urinary thiocyanate as a biomarker of tobacco smoke. Epidemiology (Sunnyvale) 6:5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1165.1000268
Jain RB (2016b) Selected volatile organic compounds as biomarkers for exposure to tobacco smoke. Biomarkers. 21:342–346. https://doi.org/10.3109/1354750X.2016.1139182
Jain RB (2017) Analysis of self-reported versus biomarker based prevalence: methodology to compute corrected smoking prevalence rates. Biomarkers. 22:476–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354750X.2016.1278264
Jain RB (2018) Revised and extended serum cotinine cut-offs to classify smokers and nonsmokers. Biomarkers. 23:502–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354750X.2018.1443516
Jain RB (2019) Lead and kidney: concentrations, variabilities, and associations across the various stages of glomerular function. J Trace Elem Med Biol 54:36–43
Jarvis MJ, Russell MA, Benowitz NL, Feyerabend C (1988) Elimination of cotinine from body fluids: implications for noninvasive measurement of tobacco smoke exposure. Am J Public Health 78(6):696–698
Kim S (2016) Overview of cotinine cutoff values for smoking status classification. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:1236. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13121236
Kim S, Jung A (2013) Optimum cutoff value of urinary cotinine distinguishing South Korean adult smokers from nonsmokers using data from the KNHANES (2008-2010). Nicotine Tob Res 15(9):1608–1616. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntt027
Martínez ME, Reid M, Jiang R, Einspahr J, Alberts DS (2004) Accuracy of self-reported smoking status among participants in a chemoprevention trial. Prev Med 38(4):492–497
Pickett KE, Rathouz PJ, Kasza K, Wakschlag LS, Wright R (2005) Self-reported smoking, cotinine levels, and patterns of smoking in pregnancy. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 19(5):368–376
Pirkle JL, Bernert JT, Caudill SP, Sosnoff CS, Pechacek TF (2006) Trends in the exposure of nonsmokers in the U.S. population to secondhand smoke: 1988-2002. Environ Health Perspect 114(6):853–858. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8850
Protano C, Andreoli R, Mutti A, Manigrasso M, Avino P, Vitali M (2018) Reference intervals for urinary cotinine levels and the influence of sampling time and other predictors on its excretion among Italian schoolchildren. Int J Environ Res Pub Health 15:817. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040817
Wagenknecht LE, Burke GL, Perkins LL, Haley NJ, Friedman GD (1992 Jan) Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study: a comparison of self-report with serum cotinine levels. Am J Public Health 82(1):33–36
Zielińska-Danch W, Wardas W, Sobczak A, Szołtysek-Bołdys I (2007) Estimation of urinary cotinine cut-off points distinguishing non-smokers, passive and active smokers. Biomarkers. 12(5):484–496
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jain, R.B. Estimates of cutoffs with specificities and sensitivities for urine cotinine and hydroxycotinine for US adults aged ≥ 20 years to classify smokers and nonsmokers. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 10882–10887 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07710-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07710-x