AIMS: Many cities have banned indoor smoking in public places. Thus, an updated recommendation for a breath carbon monoxide (CO) cut-off is needed that optimally determines smoking status. We evaluated and compared the performance of breath CO and semiquantitative cotinine immunoassay test strips (urine and saliva NicAlert®) alone and in combination. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Urban drug addiction research and treatment facility. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety non-treatment-seeking smokers and 82 non-smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed smoking histories and provided breath CO, urine and saliva specimens. Urine and saliva specimens were assayed for cotinine by NicAlert® and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LCMSMS). FINDINGS: An optimal breath CO cut-off was established using self-report and LCMSMS analysis of cotinine, an objective indicator, as reference measures. Performance of smoking indicators and combinations were compared to the reference measures. Breath CO ≥5 parts per million (p.p.m.) optimally discriminated smokers from non-smokers. Saliva NicAlert® performance was less effective than the other indicators. CONCLUSIONS: In surveys of smokers and non-smokers in areas with strong smoke-free laws, the breath carbon monoxide cut-off that discriminates most effectively appears to be ≥5 p.p.m. rather than the ≥10 p.p.m. cut-off often used. These findings may not generalize to clinical trials, regions with different carbon monoxide pollution levels or areas with less stringent smoke-free laws.
AIMS: Many cities have banned indoor smoking in public places. Thus, an updated recommendation for a breath carbon monoxide (CO) cut-off is needed that optimally determines smoking status. We evaluated and compared the performance of breath CO and semiquantitative cotinine immunoassay test strips (urine and saliva NicAlert®) alone and in combination. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Urban drug addiction research and treatment facility. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety non-treatment-seeking smokers and 82 non-smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed smoking histories and provided breath CO, urine and saliva specimens. Urine and saliva specimens were assayed for cotinine by NicAlert® and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LCMSMS). FINDINGS: An optimal breath CO cut-off was established using self-report and LCMSMS analysis of cotinine, an objective indicator, as reference measures. Performance of smoking indicators and combinations were compared to the reference measures. Breath CO ≥5 parts per million (p.p.m.) optimally discriminated smokers from non-smokers. Saliva NicAlert® performance was less effective than the other indicators. CONCLUSIONS: In surveys of smokers and non-smokers in areas with strong smoke-free laws, the breath carbon monoxide cut-off that discriminates most effectively appears to be ≥5 p.p.m. rather than the ≥10 p.p.m. cut-off often used. These findings may not generalize to clinical trials, regions with different carbon monoxide pollution levels or areas with less stringent smoke-free laws.
Authors: Che Nin Man; Ahmed Ibrahim Fathelrahman; Gam Lay Harn; Razak Lajis; Ahmad Shalihin Mohd Samin; Maizurah Omar; Rahmat Awang; Nurulain Abdullah Bayanuddin Journal: Environ Toxicol Pharmacol Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Ty S Schepis; Amy M Duhig; Thomas Liss; Amanda McFetridge; Ran Wu; Dana A Cavallo; Tricia Dahl; Peter Jatlow; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Suzaynn F Schick; Benjamin C Blount; Peyton Jacob; Najat A Saliba; John T Bernert; Ahmad El Hellani; Peter Jatlow; R Steven Pappas; Lanqing Wang; Jonathan Foulds; Arunava Ghosh; Stephen S Hecht; John C Gomez; Jessica R Martin; Clementina Mesaros; Sanjay Srivastava; Gideon St Helen; Robert Tarran; Pawel K Lorkiewicz; Ian A Blair; Heather L Kimmel; Claire M Doerschuk; Neal L Benowitz; Aruni Bhatnagar Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Karl B Scheidweiler; Gina F Marrone; Diaa M Shakleya; Edward G Singleton; Stephen J Heishman; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; John T Bernert; Jonathan Foulds; Stephen S Hecht; Peyton Jacob; Martin J Jarvis; Anne Joseph; Cheryl Oncken; Megan E Piper Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jeffrey L Fellows; Richard A Mularski; Michael C Leo; Charles J Bentz; Lisa A Waiwaiole; Melanie C Francisco; Kimberly Funkhouser; Catherine M Stoney Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; James H Stein; Stevens S Smith; Daniel M Bolt; David L Fraser; Michael C Fiore Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A Joseph Bloom; Sarah M Hartz; Timothy B Baker; Li-Shiun Chen; Megan E Piper; Louis Fox; Maribel Martinez; Dorothy Hatsukami; Eric O Johnson; Cathy C Laurie; Nancy L Saccone; Alison Goate; Laura J Bierut Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2014-09