OBJECTIVE: We aimed to measure leptin and calorie intake among different nicotine dependent groups.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Research department in school of medical sciences.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects were selected by purposive (non-probability) sampling and categorized as having low, moderate and high nicotine dependency based on the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) score. Diet was recorded by interview. Anthropometry, blood pressure, body composition, lipid profile, and physical activity level were measured accordingly. Fasting serum leptin was measured using a commercial ELISA kit.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Nicotine dependency, 24-hour diet, clinical anthropometric and clinical measurements.
RESULTS: In 107 Malay male smokers leptin concentration was inversely correlated with nicotine dependence. However, body weight, smoking period, blood pressure, body composition, lipid profile and physical activity level were not significantly different among low, moderately and highly dependent smoking groups. Leptin concentration and total calorie intake were also not significantly different among these groups.
CONCLUSION: Leptin concentration was inversely correlated with nicotine dependence, but leptin concentration and total calorie intake status were not significantly different among our different nicotine dependency subjects.
LIMITATIONS: Purposive sampling for subject recruitment and inaccurate information in the self-administered questionnaire.
METHODS: Methadone-maintained therapy (MMT) users from three centers in Malaysia had their exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) levels recorded via the piCO+ and iCOTM Smokerlyzers®, their nicotine dependence assessed with the Malay version of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND-M), and daily tobacco intake measured via the Opiate Treatment Index (OTI) Tobacco Q-score. Pearson partial correlations were used to compare the eCO results of both devices, as well as the corresponding FTND-M scores.
RESULTS: Among the 146 participants (mean age 47.9 years, 92.5% male, and 73.3% Malay ethnic group) most (55.5%) were moderate smokers (6-19 cigarettes/day). Mean eCO categories were significantly correlated between both devices (r=0.861, p<0.001), and the first and second readings were significantly correlated for each device (r=0.94 for the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, p<0.001; r=0.91 for the iCOTM Smokerlyzer®, p<0.001). Exhaled CO correlated positively with FTND-M scores for both devices. The post hoc analysis revealed a significantly lower iCOTM Smokerlyzer® reading of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.69-0.94, p<0.001) compared to that of the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, and a significant intercept of -0.34 (95% CI: -0.61 - -0.07, p=0.016) on linear regression analysis, suggesting that there may be a calibration error in one or more of the iCOTM Smokerlyzer® devices.
CONCLUSIONS: The iCOTM Smokerlyzer® readings are highly reproducible compared to those of the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, but calibration guidelines are required for the mobile-phone-based device. Further research is required to assess interchangeability.