Self-Reported Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke and Positive Urinary Cotinine in Pregnant Nonsmokers
Yu Jin Paek,1Jeong Bae Kang,2Seung-Kwon Myung,3Do-Hoon Lee,4Moon-Woo Seong,4Hong Gwan Seo,3Jung Jin Cho,1Hong Ji Song,1Kyung Hee Park,1Chan Ho Kim,1
and Jeong Ah Ko5
1Department of Family Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea.
2Department of Obstetrics, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea.
3Smoking Cessation Clinic, Center for Cancer Prevention and Detection, Korea.
4Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
5Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital; Preventive Medicine, Graduate School of Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Corresponding author: Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, Smoking Cessation Clinic, Center for Cancer Prevention and Detection, National Cancer Center Hospital, 111 Jeongbalsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 410-769, Korea. Tel: 82-31-920-0479, Fax: 82-31-920-0451, Email: msk@ncc.re.kr
Received August 20, 2008; Revised November 08, 2008; Accepted November 08, 2008.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Purpose
This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the association between self-reported exposure status to second-hand smoke and urinary cotinine level in pregnant nonsmokers.
Materials and Methods
We recruited pregnant nonsmokers from the prenatal care clinics of a university hospital and two community health centers, and their urinary cotinine concentrations were measured.
Results
Among a total of 412 pregnant nonsmokers, the proportions of self-reported exposure to second-hand smoke and positive urinary cotinine level were 60.4% and 3.4%, respectively. Among those, 4.8% of the participants who reported exposure to second-hand smoke had cotinine levels of 40 ng/mL (the kappa value = 0.029, p = 0.049). Among those who reported living with smokers (n = 170), "smoking currently permitted in the whole house" (vs. not permitted at home) was associated with positive urinary cotinine in the univariable analysis. Furthermore, this variable showed a significant association with positive urinary cotinine in the stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis [Odds ratio (OR), 15.6; 95% Confidence interval (CI) = 2.1-115.4].
Conclusion
In the current study, the association between self-reported exposure status to second-hand smoke and positive urinary cotinine in pregnant nonsmokers was poor. "Smoking currently permitted in the whole house" was a significant factor of positive urinary cotinine in pregnant nonsmokers. Furthermore, we suggest that a complete smoking ban at home should be considered to avoid potential adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes due to second-hand smoke.
Ahluwalia IB,Grummer-Strawn L,Scanlon KS. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and birth outcome: increased effects on pregnant women aged 30 years or older. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:42–47.
2.
Windham GC,Hopkins B,Fenster L,Swan SH. Prenatal active or passive tobacco smoke exposure and the risk of preterm delivery or low birth weight. Epidemiology 2000;11:427–433.
3.
Kharrazi M,DeLorenze GN,Kaufman FL,Eskenazi B,Bernert JT Jr,Graham S,et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and pregnancy outcome. Epidemiology 2004;15:660–670.
4.
Hegaard HK,Kjaergaard H,Møller LF,Wachmann H,Ottesen B. The effect of environmental tobacco smoke during pregnancy on birth weight. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006;85:675–681.
5.
Moritsugu KP. The 2006 Report of the Surgeon General: the health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. Am J Prev Med 2007;32:542–543.
6.
Rebagliato M,Bolumar F,Florey Cdu V. Assessment of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in nonsmoking pregnant women in different environments of daily living. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:525–530.
7.
O'Connor TZ,Holford TR,Leaderer BP,Hammond SK,Bracken MB. Measurement of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in pregnant women. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:1315–1321.
8.
DeLorenze GN,Kharrazi M,Kaufman FL,Eskenazi B,Bernert JT. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in pregnant women: the association between self-report and serum cotinine. Environ Res 2002;90:21–32.
9.
George L,Granath F,Johansson AL,Cnattingius S. Self-reported nicotine exposure and plasma levels of cotinine in early and late pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006;85:1331–1337.
10.
de Chazeron I,Llorca PM,Ughetto S,Coudore F,Boussiron D,Perriot J,et al. Occult maternal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Tob Control 2007;16:64–65.
11.
Borland R,Mullins R,Trotter L,White V. Trends in environmental tobacco smoke restrictions in the home in Victoria, Australia. Tob Control 1999;8:266–271.
12.
Johansson A,Hermansson G,Ludvigsson G. How should parents protect their children from environmental tobacco-smoke exposure in the home?. Pediatrics 2004;113:e291–e295.
13.
Johansson A,Halling A,Hermansson G,Ludvigsson J. Assessment of smoking behaviors in the home and their influence on children's passive smoking: development of a questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol 2005;15:453–459.
14.
Willemsen MC,Brug J,Uges DR,Vos de Wael ML. Validity and reliability of self-reported exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in work offices. J Occup Environ Med 1997;39:1111–1114.
15.
Kaufman FL,Kharrazi M,Delorenze GN,Eskenazi B,Bernert JT. Estimation of environmental tobacco smoke exposure during pregnancy using a single question on household smokers versus serum cotinine. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2002;12:286–295.
16.
Benowitz NL. Cotinine as a biomarker of environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Epidemiol Rev 1996;18:188–204.
17.
Dempsey D,Jacob P 3rd,Benowitz NL. Accelerated metabolism of nicotine and cotinine in pregnant smokers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2002;301:594–598.
,3
