Assessment of the Validity of Self-Report as a Measure of Smoking Status in Patients Post-Myocardial Infarction

Main Article Content

Sonia Grandi
André Gervais
Lawrence Joseph
Jennifer O'Loughlin
Gilles Paradis
Louise Pilote
Stephane Rinfret
Mark Eisenberg

Keywords

Abstract

Self-report is the standard method for assessment of smoking status in the outpatient setting for myocardial infarction (MI) patients. However, the validity of self-report in this patient population has not been previously investigated. Using data from a double-blind, placebocontrolled, randomized trial we examined the validity of self-report for assessment of smoking status in an outpatient setting for MI patients. Smoking was assessed by self-report and biochemical validation by expired carbon monoxide (CO). Abstinence was defined by a selfreport of no cigarettes smoked in the past week and a CO level of less than or equal to 10 parts per million (ppm). At 12 months, number of cigarettes smoked was positively correlated with CO level (r = 0.70). Results show that biochemical validation by CO does not substantially increase the likelihood of detecting smokers in MI patients. However, it may discourage patients from denying their smoking status and therefore should be considered for routine assessment of smoking status in the outpatient cardiac setting. Current clinical guidelines for secondary prevention in myocardial infarction (MI) patients recommend routine assessment of smoking status.1 In clinical trials, biochemical validation in conjunction with self-report is the conventional method for assessment of smoking status.2–4 In the outpatient
Abstract 330 | PDF Downloads 261 HTML Downloads 215

References

1. Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al. 2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:210–47.

2. Jorenby DE, Hays JT, Rigotti NA, et al. Efficacy of varenicline, an alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, vs placebo or sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;296:56–63.

3. Rigotti NA, Pipe AL, Benowitz NL, et al. Efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients with cardiovascular disease: a randomized trial. Circulation 2010;121:221–9.

4. Rigotti NA, Thorndike AN, Regan S, et al. Bupropion for smokers hospitalized with acute cardiovascular disease. Am J Med 2006;119:1080–7.

5. Benowitz NL, Jacob P, Ahijevych K, et al. Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4,149–59.

6. Gariti P, Alterman AI, Ehrman R, et al. Detecting smoking following smoking cessation treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;65:191–6.

7. Gonzales D, Rennard SI, Nides M, et al. Varenicline, an alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, vs sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;296:47–55.

8. Jorenby DE, Leischow SJ, Nides MA, et al. A controlled trial of sustainedrelease bupropion, a nicotine patch, or both for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med 1999;340:685–91.

9. Murray RP, Connett JE, Lauger GG, et al. Error in smoking measures: effects of intervention on relations of cotinine and carbon monoxide to selfreported smoking. The Lung Health Study Research Group. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1251–7.

10. Eisenberg MJ, Grandi SM, Gervais A, et al. Bupropion for smoking cessation in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:524–32.

11. Pell JP, Haw SJ, Cobbe SM, et al. Validity of self-reported smoking status: comparison of patients admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome and the general population. Nicotine Tob Res 2008;10:861–6.

12. Wilcox RG, Hughes J, Roland J. Verification of smoking history in patients after infarction using urinary nicotine and cotinine measurements. Br Med J 1979;2:1026–8.