Literature DB >> 18158719

Comparison of three carbon monoxide monitors for determination of smoking status in smokers and nonsmokers with and without COPD.

Lieke Christenhusz1, Frans de Jongh, Paul van der Valk, Marcel Pieterse, Erwin Seydel, Job van der Palen.   

Abstract

In this (CAMOXI) study, three carbon monoxide (CO) monitors and salivary cotinine are assessed regarding their ability to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers, both in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and healthy people. Twenty-six healthy smokers, 25 healthy nonsmokers, 25 smoking, and 25 former smoking stable COPD patients (age 40-72 years) were included based on self-report (N = 101). All volunteers were measured following a 12-h abstinence period. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of a positive and negative test result were assessed for a range of cutoff points for both CO and salivary cotinine. The prescribed 9-ppm cutoff point of the Breath CO generates a sensitivity of 68% and 42% for COPD patients and healthy people, respectively. Using the prescribed cutoff point (10 ppm) the Smokelyzer produces 56% sensitivity for COPD patients and 23% for healthy people. Both monitors generate 100% specificity in both groups. The cutoff point for the Micro CO meter (5 ppm) generates 88% sensitivity and 92% specificity for COPD patients, and for healthy people 92% and 88%, respectively. The optimal cutoff points depend upon the goal of the test. Salivary cotinine has a 100% sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value over the range of 15 ng/mL through 40 ng/mL for healthy participants and at 10 ng/mL for COPD patients. The prescribed cutoff points for all three CO monitors generate misleading results concerning the determination of the smoking status in both populations. Salivary cotinine measurement outperforms CO measurements and a combination of the two tools is recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18158719     DOI: 10.1089/jam.2007.0606

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Aerosol Med        ISSN: 0894-2684


  4 in total

1.  Assessing recent smoking status by measuring exhaled carbon monoxide levels.

Authors:  AnnSofi Sandberg; C Magnus Sköld; Johan Grunewald; Anders Eklund; Åsa M Wheelock
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Impact of text messages in a middle-income country to promote secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome (IMPACS): A randomized trial.

Authors:  Luiz Guilherme Passaglia; Luisa Campos Caldeira Brant; Bruno Ramos Nascimento; Antônio Luiz Pinho Ribeiro
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  Are Nurses and Auxiliary Healthcare Workers Equally Effective in Delivering Smoking Cessation Support in Primary Care?

Authors:  Kathryn Faulkner; Stephen Sutton; James Jamison; Melanie Sloan; Sue Boase; Felix Naughton
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 4.244

4.  A randomized clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of CO-oximetry and anti-smoking brief advice in a cohort of kidney transplant patients who smoke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Salvador Pita-Fernández; Rocío Seijo-Bestilleiro; Sonia Pértega-Díaz; Ángel Alonso-Hernández; Constantino Fernández-Rivera; Mercedes Cao-López; Teresa Seoane-Pillado; Beatriz López-Calviño; Cristina González-Martín; Francisco Valdés-Cañedo
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 2.279

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.