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.
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.
* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.