Biochemical Verification of Tobacco Use and Abstinence: 2019 Update

Abstract

Background The changing prevalence and patterns of tobacco use, the advent of novel nicotine delivery devices, and the development of new biomarkers prompted an update of the 2002 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) report on whether and how to apply biomarker verification for tobacco use and abstinence. Methods The SRNT Treatment Research Network convened a group of investigators with expertise in tobacco biomarkers to update the recommendations of the 2002 SNRT Biochemical Verification Report. Results Biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence increases scientific rigor and is recommended in clinical trials of smoking cessation, when feasible. Sources, appropriate biospecimens, cutpoints, time of detection windows and analytic methods for carbon monoxide, cotinine (including over the counter tests), total nicotine equivalents, minor tobacco alkaloids, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol are reviewed, as well as biochemical approaches to distinguishing cigarette smoking from use of electronic nicotine delivery devices (ENDS). Conclusions Recommendations are provided for whether and how to use biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence. Guidelines are provided on which biomarkers to use, which biospecimens to use, optimal cutpoints, time windows to detection, and methodology for biochemical verifications. Use of combinations of biomarkers is recommended for assessment of ENDS use. Implications Biochemical verification increases scientific rigor, but there are drawbacks that need to be assessed to determine whether the benefits of biochemical verification outweigh the costs, including the cost of the assays, the feasibility of sample collection, the ability to draw clear conclusions based on the duration of abstinence, and the variability of the assay within the study population. This paper provides updated recommendations from the 2002 SRNT report on whether and how to use biochemical markers in determining tobacco use and abstinence.

Effects of simple active referrals of different intensities on smoking abstinence and smoking cessation services attendance: a cluster‐randomized clinical trial

“…Another strength of our trial was the inclusion of biochemically validated abstinence as an outcome. This is often considered unnecessary in population-based trials of smoking cessation interventions with minimal contact between the investigators and participants [25]. The participation rate in the validation was approximately 51.1%, which was acceptable and comparable to our previous studies [11,15] and trials conducted in similar settings elsewhere [10].…”

Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge strategies for hospitalized smokers: Study protocol for the Helping HAND 4 randomized controlled trial

“…As a sensitivity analysis, abstinence rates not allowing e-cigarette use will also be calculated [43]. Self-reported 7-day abstinence must be confirmed by saliva cotinine of ≤ 10 ng/mL or CO ≤ 9 ppm [44]. Secondary tobacco cessation outcomes include self-reported past 7-day tobacco abstinence at each follow up point (1, 3, and 6 months), repeated point-prevalence tobacco abstinence, defined as selfreported abstinence at 1, 3, and 6 months, and duration of self-reported continuous tobacco abstinence after discharge.…”

Effects of active referral combined with a small financial incentive on smoking cessation: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

“…Moreover, we use bioverified abstinence (ie, exhaled carbon monoxide and salivary cotinine tests) as the primary outcome to increase scientific rigour and decrease misreporting. 34 …”