Eva Yeh1, Geneviève Levasseur, Murray J Kaiserman. 1. Office of Research, Evaluation and Surveillance, Controlled Substance and Tobacco Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. eva.yeh@hc-sc.gc.ca
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Validation of smoking status is a vital component for assessing self-reported smoking status. This study examined commercially available urinary cotinine immunoassay strips to evaluate their effectiveness and their reliability in validating self-reported tobacco usage. METHODS: This study compared cotinine values from urinary test strips and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) obtained from 100 self-reported nonsmokers and 201 self-reported smokers. RESULTS: The analyzed test strips, with 100 ng/ml as the cutoff value, have 91% (84%-96% CI) specificity and 92% (86%-95% CI) sensitivity. The test strips successfully identified nonsmokers from smokers with excellent reproducibility. However, self-reported smokers have significantly different (p < .001) test strip results when compared with the expected LC-MS/MS values. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the test strip demonstrated that it discriminates nonsmokers from smokers and is an adept alternative to chromatographic methods.
INTRODUCTION: Validation of smoking status is a vital component for assessing self-reported smoking status. This study examined commercially available urinary cotinine immunoassay strips to evaluate their effectiveness and their reliability in validating self-reported tobacco usage. METHODS: This study compared cotinine values from urinary test strips and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) obtained from 100 self-reported nonsmokers and 201 self-reported smokers. RESULTS: The analyzed test strips, with 100 ng/ml as the cutoff value, have 91% (84%-96% CI) specificity and 92% (86%-95% CI) sensitivity. The test strips successfully identified nonsmokers from smokers with excellent reproducibility. However, self-reported smokers have significantly different (p < .001) test strip results when compared with the expected LC-MS/MS values. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the test strip demonstrated that it discriminates nonsmokers from smokers and is an adept alternative to chromatographic methods.
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: Katherine R Sterba; Kathryn E Weaver; Anthony J Alberg; Mitchell L Worley; Janet A Tooze; Jeanne L Hatcher; Matthew J Carpenter; Terry A Day; Christopher A Sullivan; Graham W Warren Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Andrew H Liu; Denise C Babineau; Rebecca Z Krouse; Edward M Zoratti; Jacqueline A Pongracic; George T O'Connor; Robert A Wood; Gurjit K Khurana Hershey; Carolyn M Kercsmar; Rebecca S Gruchalla; Meyer Kattan; Stephen J Teach; Melanie Makhija; Dinesh Pillai; Carin I Lamm; James E Gern; Steven M Sigelman; Peter J Gergen; Alkis Togias; Cynthia M Visness; William W Busse Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Karen L Cropsey; Lindsay R Trent; Charles B Clark; Erin N Stevens; Adrienne C Lahti; Peter S Hendricks Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Seung Hee Choi; Andrea H Waltje; David L Ronis; Devon Noonan; OiSaeng Hong; Caroline R Richardson; John D Meeker; Sonia A Duffy Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sarity Dodson; Karen M Klassen; Karalyn McDonald; Tanya Millard; Richard H Osborne; Malcolm W Battersby; Christopher K Fairley; Julie A Simpson; Paula Lorgelly; Andrew Tonkin; Janine Roney; Sean Slavin; Jasminka Sterjovski; Margot Brereton; Sharon R Lewin; Levinia Crooks; Jo Watson; Michael R Kidd; Irith Williams; Julian H Elliott Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 3.090