Comparable Sensitivities of Urine Cotinine and Breath Carbon Monoxide at Follow-Up Time Points of Three Months or More in a Smoking Cessation TrialFritz M.a · Wallner R.c · Grohs U.c · Kemmler G.b · Saria A.a · Zernig G.a
aExperimental Psychiatry Unit, Department of General Psychiatry and Social Psychiatry, and bDepartment of General Psychiatry and Social Psychiatry, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, and cbraindesign GmbH, Graz, Austria
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
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.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: 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 government 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.