The mobile-phone-based iCOTM Smokerlyzer®: Comparison with the piCO+ Smokerlyzer® among smokers undergoing methadone-maintained therapy

Introduction: The mobile-phone-based Bedfont iCOTM Smokerlyzer® is of unknown validity and reproducibility compared to the widely-used piCO+ Smokerlyzer®. We aimed to compare the validity and reproducibility of the iCOTM Smokerlyzer®with the piCO+ Smokerlyzer® among patients reducing or quitting tob...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Tobacco induced diseases 2019-09, Vol.17 (September), p.65-65
Hauptverfasser: Wong, Hsui Yang, Subramaniyan, Muniswary, Bullen, Chris, A. N., Amer Siddiq, Danaee, Mahmoud, Yee, Anne
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction: The mobile-phone-based Bedfont iCOTM Smokerlyzer® is of unknown validity and reproducibility compared to the widely-used piCO+ Smokerlyzer®. We aimed to compare the validity and reproducibility of the iCOTM Smokerlyzer®with the piCO+ Smokerlyzer® among patients reducing or quitting tobacco smoking. Material and Methods: Methadone-maintained therapy (MMT) users from three centers in Malaysia had their exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) levels recorded via the piCO+and iCOTM Smokerlyzers®, their nicotine dependence assessed with the Malay version of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND-M), and daily tobacco intake measured via the Opiate Treatment Index (OTI) Tobacco Q-score. Pearson partial correlations were used to compare the eCO results of both devices, as well as the corresponding FTND-M scores. Results: Among the 146 participants (mean age 47.9 years, 92.5% male, and 73.3% Malay ethnic group) most (55.5%) were moderate smokers (6 – 19 cigarettes/ day). Mean eCO categories were significantly correlated between both devices (r=0.861, p< 0.001), and the first and second readings were significantly correlated for each device (r=0.94 for the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, p< 0.001; r=0.91 for the iCOTM Smokerlyzer®, p< 0.001). Exhaled CO correlated positively with FTND-M scores for both devices. The post hoc analysis revealed a significantly lower iCOTM Smokerlyzer® reading of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.69 – 0.94, p< 0.001) compared to that of the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, and a significant intercept of -0.34 (95% CI: -0.61 – -0.07, p=0.016) on linear regression analysis, suggesting that there may be a calibration error in one or more of the iCOTM Smokerlyzer® devices. Conclusions: The iCOTM Smokerlyzer® readings are highly reproducible compared to those of the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, but calibration guidelines are required for the mobile-phone-based device. Further research is required to assess interchangeability.
ISSN:1617-9625
2070-7266
1617-9625
DOI:10.18332/tid/111355