2014
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntu085
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How Low Should You Go? Determining the Optimal Cutoff for Exhaled Carbon Monoxide to Confirm Smoking Abstinence When Using Cotinine as Reference

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
96
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(104 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
6
96
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Using Bedfont monitors, Erb, Raiff, Meredith, and Dallery (2014) identified CO values <8 ppm as maximizing both sensitivity and specificity for classifying smokers from nonsmokers. By contrast, Perkins et al (2013) found < 5 ppm to be the optimal cutoff for 24 hour abstinence when using the Vitalograph BreathCO monitor, similar to <4 ppm found by Javors, Hatch, and Lamb (2005), Cropsey et al (2014) and Emery and Levine (2015) when also using the Vitalograph monitor. This discrepancy suggests there may be variation between these brands of CO monitors in validating abstinence and raises concern over whether they can be used interchangeably.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 58%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Using Bedfont monitors, Erb, Raiff, Meredith, and Dallery (2014) identified CO values <8 ppm as maximizing both sensitivity and specificity for classifying smokers from nonsmokers. By contrast, Perkins et al (2013) found < 5 ppm to be the optimal cutoff for 24 hour abstinence when using the Vitalograph BreathCO monitor, similar to <4 ppm found by Javors, Hatch, and Lamb (2005), Cropsey et al (2014) and Emery and Levine (2015) when also using the Vitalograph monitor. This discrepancy suggests there may be variation between these brands of CO monitors in validating abstinence and raises concern over whether they can be used interchangeably.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 58%
“…The optimal CO value that maximizes sensitivity and specificity for identifying those quit versus not quit should be determined for each monitor type and compared between types, especially within the same participants. Such research may benefit by using other biomarkers of recent nicotine exposure (e.g., cotinine) as a reference point, similar to methods used by Cropsey et al (2014). The use of additional biomarkers as reference would strengthen future studies as these measures would not be affected by other combustibles (e.g., marijuana) and would be sensitive to noncombustible sources of nicotine (e.g., electronic cigarettes, NRT, etc.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary smoking outcome measure during follow-up, 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, was confirmed with a CO level ≤4 ppm and salivary cotinine level ≤ 15 ng/ml (Cropsey et al, 2014; Hughes et al, 2003; Lamb et al, 2010). (CO was used within-treatment; cotinine was used at follow-ups except if the person was using nicotine replacement when CO needed to be used instead.)…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Inclusion of study site as a covariate did not change the results of any of the analyses reported above. If CO ≤ 3ppm was used to validate reports of abstinence, 37 the results did not change (effect of race at week +4, OR = 3.69, 95% CI = 1.44, 9.44, p = .007; effect of mean SABQ at week +4, OR = 2.70, 95% CI = 1.17, 6.22, p = .02).…”
Section: Sabq As Mediator Of Relapsementioning
confidence: 99%