Karen L Cropsey1, Lindsay R Trent2, Charles B Clark3, Erin N Stevens4, Adrienne C Lahti3, Peter S Hendricks5. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; kcropsey@uab.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi; 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; 4. Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL; 5. Department of Health Behavior in the School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Confirming abstinence during smoking cessation clinical trials is critical for determining treatment effectiveness. Several biological methods exist for verifying abstinence (e.g., exhaled carbon monoxide [CO], cotinine), and while cotinine provides a longer window of detection, it is not easily used in trials involving nicotine replacement therapy. The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco's Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification cite 8-10 parts per million (ppm) for CO as a viable cutoff to determine abstinence; however, recent literature suggests this cutoff is likely too high and may overestimate the efficacy of treatment. METHODS: This study examined the relationship between CO and cotinine in a sample of 662 individuals participating in a smoking cessation clinical trial. A receiver operating characteristics curve was calculated to determine the percentage of false positives and false negatives at given CO levels when using cotinine as confirmation of abstinence. Differences were also examined across race and gender. RESULTS: A CO cutoff of 3 ppm (97.1% correct classification) most accurately distinguished smokers from nonsmokers. This same cutoff was accurate for both racial and gender groups. The standard cutoffs of 8 ppm (14.0% misclassification of smokers as abstainers) and 10 ppm (20.6% misclassification of smokers as abstainers) produced very high false-negative rates and inaccurately identified a large part of the sample as being abstinent when their cotinine test identified them as still smoking. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that researchers and clinicians adopt a more stringent CO cutoff in the range of 3-4 ppm when complete abstinence from smoking is the goal.
INTRODUCTION: Confirming abstinence during smoking cessation clinical trials is critical for determining treatment effectiveness. Several biological methods exist for verifying abstinence (e.g., exhaled carbon monoxide [CO], cotinine), and while cotinine provides a longer window of detection, it is not easily used in trials involving nicotine replacement therapy. The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco's Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification cite 8-10 parts per million (ppm) for CO as a viable cutoff to determine abstinence; however, recent literature suggests this cutoff is likely too high and may overestimate the efficacy of treatment. METHODS: This study examined the relationship between CO and cotinine in a sample of 662 individuals participating in a smoking cessation clinical trial. A receiver operating characteristics curve was calculated to determine the percentage of false positives and false negatives at given CO levels when using cotinine as confirmation of abstinence. Differences were also examined across race and gender. RESULTS: A CO cutoff of 3 ppm (97.1% correct classification) most accurately distinguished smokers from nonsmokers. This same cutoff was accurate for both racial and gender groups. The standard cutoffs of 8 ppm (14.0% misclassification of smokers as abstainers) and 10 ppm (20.6% misclassification of smokers as abstainers) produced very high false-negative rates and inaccurately identified a large part of the sample as being abstinent when their cotinine test identified them as still smoking. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that researchers and clinicians adopt a more stringent CO cutoff in the range of 3-4 ppm when complete abstinence from smoking is the goal.
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Stephen Rennard; Manoj K Patel; Michael Kotlyar; Robert Malcolm; Mitchell A Nides; Greg Dozier; Matthew P Bars; Brenda D Jamerson Journal: Am J Med Date: 2004-02-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Christopher W Kahler; Patricia A Cioe; Golfo K Tzilos; Nichea S Spillane; Lorenzo Leggio; Susan E Ramsey; Richard A Brown; Stephanie S O'Malley Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2017-05-07 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Cendrine D Robinson; Wallace B Pickworth; Stephen J Heishman; David W Wetter; Paul M Cinciripini; Yisheng Li; Brigid Rowell; Andrew J Waters Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-08 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: Pamela Valera; F Joseph McClernon; Greer Burkholder; Michael J Mugavero; James Willig; Conall O'Cleirigh; Karen L Cropsey Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2017-07