Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 85, No. 4, 2010
Issue release date: April 2010

Comparable Sensitivities of Urine Cotinine and Breath Carbon Monoxide at Follow-Up Time Points of Three Months or More in a Smoking Cessation Trial

Fritz M. · Wallner R. · Grohs U. · Kemmler G. · Saria A. · Zernig G.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

To control for likely overreporting of abstinence in clinical trials of smoking cessation aids, field convention demands the corroboration of subjects’ self-reports by a biochemical/pharmacological marker. It is, however, currently debated if urinary cotinine (UC), a metabolite of nicotine, should be preferred because of its higher sensitivity, although sample collection for and analysis of cotinine are much more expensive and work intensive than carbon monoxide (CO) measurements in exhaled air. In the present study, it turned out that UC was of only moderately higher sensitivity than CO (99.4% vs. 96.3%; p = 0.02), the difference being significant only at group sizes of >164. UC identified participants as smokers who escaped CO detection in 4.9% of the cases, whereas CO identified smokers who escaped UC detection in 2.7% of the cases (p = 0.014). Our findings suggest that the costs/disadvantages of using UC instead of CO may outweigh its benefit as a pharmacological marker of (non)smoking status.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Murray RP, Connett JE, Lauger GG, Voelker HT: Error in smoking measures: effects of intervention on relations cotinine and carbon monoxide to self-reported smoking. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1251–1257.
  2. Gariti P, Alterman AI, Ehrman R, Mulvaney FD, O’Brien CP: Detecting smoking following smoking cessation treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;65:191–196.
  3. West R, Hajek P, Stead L, Stapleton J: Outcome criteria in smoking cessation trials: proposal for a common standard. Addiction 2005;100:299–303.
  4. Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, Dorfman SF, Goldstein MG, Gritz ER, et al: Treating tobacco use and dependence: clinical practice guideline. Washington, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.
  5. SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification: Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4:149–159.
  6. Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS, Snow MG: Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies. Psychol Bull 1992;111:23–41.
  7. Wells AJ, English PB, Posner SF, Wagenknecht LE, Perez-Stable EJ: Misclassification rates for current smokers misclassified as nonsmokers. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1503–1509.
  8. Etter JF, Vu DT, Perneger TV: Saliva cotinine levels in smokers and nonsmokers. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:251–258.
  9. Tuomi T, Johnsson T, Reijula K: Analysis of nicotine, 3-hydroxycotinine, cotinine, and caffeine in urine of passive smokers by HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 1999;45:2164–2172.
  10. Moyer TP, Charlson JR, Enger RJ, Dale LC, Ebbert JO, Schroeder DR, et al: Simultaneous analysis of nicotine, nicotine metabolites, and tobacco alkaloids in serum or urine by tandem mass spectrometry, with clinically relevant metabolic profiles. Clin Chem 2002;48:1460–1471.
  11. Jatlow P, Toll BA, Leary V, Krishnan-Sarin S, O’Malley SS: Comparison of expired carbon monoxide and plasma cotinine as markers of cigarette abstinence. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008;98:203–209.
  12. Zernig G, Wallner R, Grohs U, Kriechbaum N, Kemmler G, Saria A: A randomized trial of short psychotherapy vs sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation. Addiction 2008;103:2024–2031.
  13. Jorenby DE, Leischow SJ, Nides MA, Rennard SI, Johnston JA, Hughes AR, et al: A controlled trial of sustained-release bupropion, a nicotine patch, or both for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med 1999;340:685–691.
  14. Jorenby DE, Hays JT, Rigotti NA, Azoulay S, Watsky EJ, Williams KE, et al: Efficacy of varenicline, an α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, vs placebo or sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;296:56–63.
  15. Zernig G, de Wit H, Telser S, Nienhusmeier M, Wakonigg G, Sturm K, et al: Subjective effects of slow-release bupropion vs caffeine as determined in a quasi-naturalistic setting. Pharmacology 2004;70:206–215.
  16. Ermer J, Miller JB: Method Validation in Pharmaceutical Analysis. A Guide to Best Practice. Weinheim, Wiley-VCH, 2006.
  17. Zernig G, Saria A, Kurz M, O’Malley SS: Handbook of Alcoholism. Boca Raton, CRC, 2000.
  18. Zernig G, Ahmed SH, Cardinal RN, Morgan D, Acquas E, Foltin RW, et al: Explaining the escalation of drug use in substance dependence: models and appropriate animal laboratory tests. Pharmacology 2007;80:65–119.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50