Cited by 31Smoking Behavior and CessationPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsPregnancy and preeclampsia studies

Use of electronic nicotine delivery systems by pregnant women II: Hair biomarkers for exposures to nicotine and tobacco-specific nitrosamines

Open access
Clemens, Melissa, Cardenas, Victor, Fischbach, Lori, Cen, Ruiqi, Siegel, Eric, Eswaran, Hari, Ekanem, Uwemedimbuk, Policherla, Anuradha +3 more·2019·Tobacco Induced Diseases

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Public awareness of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has increased over time, and the perception that ENDS offer a safer alternative to cigarettes may lead some pregnant women to use them to reduce cigarette smoking during pregnancy. No previous studies have used metabolite levels in hair to measure nicotine exposure for ENDS users during pregnancy. We aimed to measure and compare levels of nicotine, cotinine, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) in hair samples from pregnant women who were current ENDS users, current smokers, and current non-smokers. We also aimed to estimate the association between ENDS use/smoking and smallness for gestational age (SGA). METHODS: We used hair specimens from pregnant women who were dual users (ENDS and cigarettes), smokers, and non-smokers from a prospective cohort study to estimate exposure to nicotine, cotinine, and TSNAs. The exposure biomarkers and self-reports of smoking and ENDS use were used in log-binomial regression models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) for SGA among offspring. RESULTS: Nicotine concentrations for pregnant dual users were not significantly different from those for smokers (11.0 and 10.6 ng/mg hair, respectively; p=0.58). Similarly, levels of cotinine, and TSNAs for pregnant dual users were not lower than those for smokers. The RR for SGA was similar for dual users and smokers relative to nonsmokers, (RR=3.5, 95% CI: 0.8-14.8) and (RR=3.3, 95% CI: 0.9-11.6), respectively. Using self-reports confirmed by hair nicotine, the RR values for dual ENDS users and smokers were 8.3 (95% CI: 1.0-69.1) and 7.3 (95% CI:1.0-59.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe lower levels of nicotine, cotinine, and TSNAs for current dual users compared to smokers during pregnancy. The risk of SGA for offspring of pregnant dual users was similar to that for offspring of pregnant smokers. Future studies are needed to further estimate the magnitude of the association between ENDS use and smallness for gestational age.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18332/tid/105387

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two studies examined maternal exposure to biomarkers of toxicants and carcinogens during pregnancy and neither reported evidence of increased risk of vaping.

    “Two studies examined maternal exposure to biomarkers of toxicants and carcinogens during pregnancy and neither reported evidence of increased risk of vaping (see Table 5) [37, 39].”

    From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results examine biomarkers in pregnant women, but the Discussion reports that the estimated risk of smallness for gestational age among confirmed dual users was over eight times that of confirmed non-smokers. The Conclusions also say dual users had the same or greater exposure to NNK, a carcinogen, as smokers, raising concerns about adverse effects. These findings contradict the claim that this study reported no evidence of increased risk, although they do not isolate the effect of vaping from concurrent smoking. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The other study reported that hair biomarkers of carcinogens were not significantly different among dual-users, non-users and exclusive-smokers but did not include exclusive-vapers.

    “The other study reported that hair biomarkers of carcinogens were not significantly different among dual-users, non-users and exclusive-smokers [37] but did not include exclusive-vapers [37].”

    From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    In Results, Table 1 shows no significant NNK difference between dual users and smokers (p=0.18), but NNK differs significantly between non-users and both dual users (p=0.03) and smokers (p=0.002). The Limitations and strengths section confirms that the sole exclusive ENDS user was excluded. Thus, the claim is correct about excluding exclusive vapers but not about a lack of significant differences across all three groups. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Six studies verified only smoking status.

    “six verified only smoking status (33,34,37,40,41,44]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [40]Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation or Reduction: A Review of the Clinical Evidence 2014 Ottawa, ON Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK195714/. Accessed November 27, 2018. 24741730

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clemens, M., Cardenas, V., Fischbach, L., Cen, R., Siegel, E., Eswaran, H., Ekanem, U., Policherla, A., Moody, H., Magann, E., & Boysen, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
  • University of Uyo (NG)
Corresponding author
Fischbach, Lori
Venue
Tobacco Induced Diseases
Published
2019-06-06
Volume
17
Issue
June
Pages
50-50
ISSN
1617-9625 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2948556849
Cited by
31
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Tobacco Induced Diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • University of Arkansas
  • Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance (KL2TR000063, UL1TR000039)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000039, KL2TR000063, UL1TR000039 and KL2TR000063)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Keywords
electronic cigarettes, pregnant women, hair biomarkers, nicotine exposure, cotinine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, small for gestational age, fetal growth restriction, prenatal tobacco exposure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review