Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Cigarettes, heated tobacco products and dual use: exhaled carbon monoxide, saliva cotinine and total tobacco consumed by Hong Kong tobacco users
  1. Xiaoyu Zhang1,
  2. Yuying Sun1,
  3. Yee Tak Derek Cheung2,
  4. Man Ping Wang2,
  5. Yongda Socrates Wu2,
  6. Kin Yeung Chak1,
  7. Jianjiu Chen1,3,
  8. Lok Tung Leung1,
  9. Tai Hing Lam1,
  10. Sai Yin Ho1
  1. 1School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China
  2. 2School of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China
  3. 3Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Yuying Sun, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China; gyysun{at}hku.hk; Dr Sai Yin Ho, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hog Kong SAR, People's Republic of China; syho{at}hku.hk

Abstract

Background Independent studies on exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) and saliva cotinine levels in regular heated tobacco product (HTP) users, and how they compare with conventional cigarette (CC) smokers, are lacking.

Methods A total of 3294 current users of CCs, HTPs or electronic cigarettes (ECs) from a household survey and a smoking hotspot survey were classified into seven groups: exclusive users of CCs, HTPs, ECs; dual users of CCs and HTPs, CCs and ECs, HTPs and ECs; and triple users. We measured exhaled CO level using the piCo Smokerlyzer (n=780) and saliva cotinine using NicAlert cotinine test strips (n=620). Among the seven groups, the differences in (1) CO and cotinine levels were examined using Kruskal-Wallis test, and (2) the average daily tobacco consumption in the past 30 days was examined using multivariable linear regression.

Results Both exclusive and dual users of CCs had a higher CO level than exclusive HTP or EC users (p<0.05). Exhaled CO levels were similar between HTP and EC users, as were saliva cotinine levels among the seven groups. Compared with exclusive CC users, those who also used HTPs or ECs smoked fewer CCs (CCs+HTPs: adjusted coefficient −2.79, 95% CI −3.90 to –1.69; CCs+ECs: −1.34, 95% CI −2.34 to –0.34), but consumed more tobacco sticks equivalent in total (2.79 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.96); 1.95 (95% CI 0.79 to 3.12)).

Conclusions HTP or EC use showed lower exhaled CO but similar saliva cotinine levels compared with CC use. Dual users of CCs and HTPs/ECs smoked fewer CCs than exclusive CC users, but consumed more tobacco in total.

  • harm reduction
  • cotinine
  • non-cigarette tobacco products

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon request to the corresponding authors at syho@hku.hk or gyysun@hku.hk.

This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon request to the corresponding authors at syho@hku.hk or gyysun@hku.hk.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors conceptualised and designed the study. XZ analysed the data and wrote the first draft. YS coordinated the study. All authors critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. SYH is responsible for the overall content and is the guarantor of this work.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.