Chemical characteristics and cancer risk assessment of smokeless tobacco used in Tunisia (neffa).

INTRODUCTION: neffa, a form of air-dried smokeless tobacco used in North Africa, is spuriously perceived as a lower risk alternative to smoking. The objective of this study was to provide information on some harmful constituents of neffa and to use them for cancer risk assessment. METHODS: a high-performance liquid chromatography method coupled with fluorescence detector was used to determine polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in one sample of neffa. An atomic absorption spectrometry was performed to determine the concentrations of lead and cadmium in three samples of neffa. The levels of toxicants found in neffa were used to assess for lifetime cancer risk as advocated by the US Environment Protection Agency. RESULTS: the determination of PAHs in neffa allowed the identification of phenanthrene and anthracene. However, the higher molecular weight PAHs such as Benzo(a)Pyrene B(a)P were not detected. The concentrations of cadmium and lead varied between 1.3 to 2.8µg/g and 1.7 to 4.6µg/g respectively. Cancer risk for cadmium and lead varied between 4.2E-03 to 9.3E-03 and 2.5E-06 to 6.4E-06 respectively. Cancer risk for Cd exceeded the range of 10E-04 to 10E-06 of an acceptable risk. CONCLUSION: neffa is not a healthy alternative for overcoming smoking addiction. It contains mineral and organic pulmonary toxicants. This study could serve as a scientific basis to inform consumers about the products´ toxicity and help them to quit smokeless tobacco (SLT) use.

The 'clinically significant' bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in children: a comparative study between six definitions of scholarly societies and a mini-review.

Objective: To compare the percentages of children with and without airway obstruction (obstructive and non-obstructive groups, respectively) presenting a 'clinically significant' BDR according to the following definitions: GINA: FEV1 increase >12% predicted (∆Predicted), ATS/ERS: FEV1 increase ≥12% initial (∆Initial) and ∆FEV1 absolute (∆) ≥200 ml and/or ∆FVCInitial ≥12% and ∆FVC ≥200 ml, British thoracic society (BTS): ∆FEV1Initial ≥12%, National asthma education and prevention program (NAEPP): ∆FEV1Initial ≥12% and ∆FEV1 > 200 ml, Group of research on advances in pediatric pneumology: ∆FEV1Initial ≥12% or ∆PEFInitial ≥20%, and South African thoracic society (SATS): ∆FEV1Initial ≥12% or ∆FEV1 >200 ml and/or ∆FVCInitial ≥12% or ∆FVC >200 ml.Methods: This was a multicenter comparative study involving 278 children aged 6 to16 years: obstructive group (FEV1/FVC < lower-limit-of-normal, n = 116) and non-obstructive group (FEV1/FVC ≥ lower-limit-of-normal, n = 162). Spirometry was performed before/after a bronchodilator test. The Cochrane Q test was used to compare the percentage of responders according to the six definitions.Results: The percentages of responders among the obstructive [ranging from 51.72 (NAEPP) to 74.14% (SATS)] and the non-obstructive [ranging from 0.62 (NAEPP, BTS) to 8.64% (SATS)] groups were definition-dependent.Conclusion: In children, a 'clinically significant' BDR is definition-dependent.

How to Stage Airflow Limitation in Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Male Patients?

No study has evaluated the utility of different classifications of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) airflow limitation (AFL) in terms of the refined "ABCD" classification of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) or in terms of the impacts on quality of life. This study aimed to compare some relevant health outcomes (i.e., GOLD classification and quality-of-life scores) between COPD patients having "light" and "severe" AFL according to five COPD AFL classifications. It was a cross-sectional prospective study including 55 stable COPD male patients. The COPD assessment test (CAT), the VQ11 quality-of-life questionnaire, a spirometry, and a bronchodilator test were performed. The patients were divided into GOLD "A/B" and "C/D." The following five classifications of AFL severity, based on different post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) expressions, were applied: FEV1%pred: "light" (≥50), "severe" (<50); FEV1z-score: "light" (≥-3), "severe" (<-3); FEV1/height2: "light" (≥0.40), "severe" (<0.40); FEV1/height3: "light" (≥0.29), "severe" (<0.29); and FEV1Quotient: "light" (≥2.50), "severe" (<2.50). The percentages of the patients with "severe" AFL were significantly influenced by the applied classification of the AFL severity (89.1 [FEV1z-score], 63.6 [FEV1%pred], 41.8 [FEV1/height3], 40.0 [FEV1Quotient], and 25.4 [FEV1/height2]; Cochrane test = 91.49, df = 4). The CAT and VQ11 scores were significantly different between the patients having "light" and "severe" AFL. In GOLD "C/D" patients, only the FEV1Quotient was able to distinguish between the two AFL severities. To conclude, the five classifications of COPD AFL were not similar when compared with regard to some relevant health outcomes.