Beth A Bailey1. 1. Department of Family Medicine, East Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 70621, Johnson City, TN 37614, United States. nordstro@etsu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of carbon monoxide in expired air samples (ECO) is a non-invasive, cost-effective biochemical marker for smoking. Cut points of 6ppm-10ppm have been established, though appropriate cut-points for pregnant woman have been debated due to metabolic changes. This study assessed whether an ECO cut-point identifying at least 90% of pregnant smokers, and misidentifying fewer than 10% of non-smokers, could be established. METHODS: Pregnant women (N=167) completed a validated self-report smoking assessment, a urine drug screen for cotinine (UDS), and provided an expired air sample twice during pregnancy. RESULTS: Half of women reported non-smoking status early (51%) and late (53%) in pregnancy, confirmed by UDS. Using a traditional 8ppm+cut-point for the early pregnancy reading, only 1% of non-smokers were incorrectly identified as smokers, but only 56% of all smokers, and 67% who smoked 5+ cigarettes in the previous 24h, were identified. However, at 4ppm+, only 8% of non-smokers were misclassified as smokers, and 90% of all smokers and 96% who smoked 5+ cigarettes in the previous 24h were identified. False positives were explained by heavy second hand smoke exposure and marijuana use. Results were similar for late pregnancy ECO, with ROC analysis revealing an area under the curve of .95 for early pregnancy, and .94 for late pregnancy readings. CONCLUSIONS: A lower 4ppm ECO cut-point may be necessary to identify pregnant smokers using expired air samples, and this cut-point appears valid throughout pregnancy. Work is ongoing to validate findings in larger samples, but it appears if an appropriate cut-point is used, ECO is a valid method for determining smoking status in pregnancy.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of carbon monoxide in expired air samples (ECO) is a non-invasive, cost-effective biochemical marker for smoking. Cut points of 6ppm-10ppm have been established, though appropriate cut-points for pregnant woman have been debated due to metabolic changes. This study assessed whether an ECO cut-point identifying at least 90% of pregnant smokers, and misidentifying fewer than 10% of non-smokers, could be established. METHODS: Pregnant women (N=167) completed a validated self-report smoking assessment, a urine drug screen for cotinine (UDS), and provided an expired air sample twice during pregnancy. RESULTS: Half of women reported non-smoking status early (51%) and late (53%) in pregnancy, confirmed by UDS. Using a traditional 8ppm+cut-point for the early pregnancy reading, only 1% of non-smokers were incorrectly identified as smokers, but only 56% of all smokers, and 67% who smoked 5+ cigarettes in the previous 24h, were identified. However, at 4ppm+, only 8% of non-smokers were misclassified as smokers, and 90% of all smokers and 96% who smoked 5+ cigarettes in the previous 24h were identified. False positives were explained by heavy second hand smoke exposure and marijuana use. Results were similar for late pregnancy ECO, with ROC analysis revealing an area under the curve of .95 for early pregnancy, and .94 for late pregnancy readings. CONCLUSIONS: A lower 4ppm ECO cut-point may be necessary to identify pregnant smokers using expired air samples, and this cut-point appears valid throughout pregnancy. Work is ongoing to validate findings in larger samples, but it appears if an appropriate cut-point is used, ECO is a valid method for determining smoking status in pregnancy.
Authors: Tatiana N Nanovskaya; Cheryl Oncken; Valentina M Fokina; Richard S Feinn; Shannon M Clark; Holly West; Sunil K Jain; Mahmoud S Ahmed; Gary D V Hankins Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 8.661
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: Cecilia L Bergeria; Sarah H Heil; Janice Y Bunn; Stacey C Sigmon; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Allison N Kurti; Katherine Tang; Hypatia A Bolivar; Carolyn Evemy; Norman Medina; Joan Skelly; Tyler Nighbor; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Ruth Bell; Svetlana V Glinianaia; Zelda van der Waal; Andrew Close; Eoin Moloney; Susan Jones; Vera Araújo-Soares; Sharon Hamilton; Eugene Mg Milne; Janet Shucksmith; Luke Vale; Martyn Willmore; Martin White; Steven Rushton Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 7.552