Mobile, Remote, and Individual Focused: Comparing Breath Carbon Monoxide Readings and Abstinence Between Smartphone-Enabled and Stand-Alone Monitors.

Autor:	Tuck BM; Steve Hick School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX., Karelitz JL; Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.; Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA., Tomko RL; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC., Dahne J; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.; Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC., Cato P; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC., McClure EA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.; Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco [Nicotine Tob Res] 2021 Mar 19; Vol. 23 (4), pp. 741-747.
DOI:	10.1093/ntr/ntaa203
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Newly available, smartphone-enabled carbon monoxide (CO) monitors are lower in cost than traditional stand-alone monitors and represent a marked advancement for smoking research. New products are promising, but data are needed to compare breath CO readings between smartphone-enabled and stand-alone monitors. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the agreement between the mobile iCO (Bedfont Scientific Ltd) with two other monitors from the same manufacturer (Micro+ pro and Micro+ basic) and (2) determine optimal, monitor-specific, cotinine-confirmed abstinence cutoff values. Methods: Adult (≥18) smokers (n = 26) and nonsmokers (n = 21) provided three breath CO samples (using three different monitors) in each of 10 sessions, and urine cotinine was measured for gold standard determination of abstinence. CO comparisons (N = 437) were analyzed using regression-based Bland-Altman Analysis of Agreement; receiver operating characteristics curves were used to determine optimal abstinence cutoffs. Results: Bland-Altman analyses indicated that the iCO monitor provided higher CO results than both Micro+ monitors. Sensitivity and specificity analyses showed that the optimal CO cutoff for determining abstinence was <3 ppm for the Micro+ pro (88% sensitivity, 93% specificity) and Micro+ basic (83% sensitivity, 98% specificity), but was higher for the iCO (<6 ppm; 73% sensitivity, 100% specificity). Conclusions: Relative to both Micro+ monitors, the smartphone-enabled iCO provided systematically higher CO values and required a higher cutoff to reliably determine smoking abstinence. This does not indicate that CO values obtained using the iCO are not valid; instead, these results suggest that monitor-specific abstinence cutoffs are needed to ensure accurate bioverification of smoking status. Implications: Results from this study indicate that CO values from the smartphone-enabled iCO should not be used interchangeably with the stand-alone Micro+ pro and Micro+ basic, particularly when lower CO values (<10 ppm) are critical (ie, determination of abstinence vs confirming smoking status for study inclusion). Optimal CO cutoffs recommended for determining abstinence on Micro+ and iCO monitors are at <3 and <6 ppm, respectively. (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu