Medline ® Abstracts for References 18,42-49

Importance: Many adverse health outcomes are associated with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

Objective: To review primary care-relevant evidence on screening adults for OSA, test accuracy, and treatment of OSA, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through October 2015, references, and experts, with surveillance of the literature through October 5, 2016.

Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs); studies evaluating accuracy of screening questionnaires or prediction tools, diagnostic accuracy of portable monitors, or association between apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and health outcomes among community-based participants.

Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. When multiple similar studies were available, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), AHI, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores, blood pressure, mortality, cardiovascular events, motor vehicle crashes, quality of life, and harms.

Results: A total of 110 studies were included (N = 46 188). No RCTs compared screening with no screening. In 2 studies (n = 702), the screening accuracy of the multivariable apnea prediction score followed by home portable monitor testing for detecting severe OSA syndrome (AHI≥30 and ESS score>10) was AUC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.82) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90), respectively, but the studies oversampled high-risk participants and those with OSA and OSA syndrome. No studies prospectively evaluated screening tools to report calibration or clinical utility for improving health outcomes. Meta-analysis found that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with sham was significantly associated with reduction of AHI (weighted mean difference [WMD], -33.8 [95% CI, -42.0 to -25.6]; 13 trials, 543 participants), excessive sleepiness assessed by ESS score (WMD, -2.0 [95% CI, -2.6 to -1.4]; 22 trials, 2721 participants), diurnal systolic blood pressure (WMD, -2.4 points [95% CI, -3.9 to -0.9]; 15 trials, 1190 participants), and diurnal diastolic blood pressure (WMD, -1.3 points [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.4]; 15 trials, 1190 participants). CPAP was associated with modest improvement in sleep-related quality of life (Cohen d, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.42]; 13 trials, 2325 participants). Mandibularadvancement devices (MADs) and weight loss programs were also associated with reduced AHI and excessive sleepiness. Common adverse effects of CPAP and MADs included oral or nasal dryness, irritation, and pain, among others. In cohort studies, there was a consistent association between AHI and all-cause mortality.

Conclusions and Relevance: There is uncertainty about the accuracy or clinical utility of all potential screening tools. Multiple treatments for OSA reduce AHI, ESS scores, and blood pressure. Trials of CPAP and other treatments have not established whether treatment reduces mortality or improves most other health outcomes, except for modest improvement in sleep-related quality of life.

Five patients with severe obstructive sleep apnoea were treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) applied via a comfortable nose mask through the nares. Low levels of pressure (range 4.5-10 cm H2O) completely prevented upper airway occlusion during sleep in each patient and allowed an entire night of uninterrupted sleep. Continuous positive airway pressure applied in this manner provides a pneumatic splint for the nasopharyngeal airway and is a safe, simple treatment for the obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea is the periodic reduction (hypopnoea) or cessation (apnoea) of breathing due to narrowing or occlusion of the upper airway during sleep. The main symptom is daytime sleepiness and it has been suggested it is linked to premature death, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and road traffic accidents.

OBJECTIVES: The main treatment for sleep apnoea is with the use of continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), which requires a flow generator and mask. These are used at night to prevent apnoea, hypoxia and sleep disturbance. The objective was to assess the effects of CPAP in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and reference lists of articles. We consulted experts in the field. Searches were current to July 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing nocturnal CPAP with an inactive control or oral appliances in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea (an apnoea and hypopnoea index greater than five per hour). Trials had a minimum intervention period of two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and two review authors extracted data independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Parallel and crossover group trials were analysed separately.

MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six trials involving 1718 people met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was mixed. Compared with control, CPAP showed significant improvements in objective and subjective sleepiness and several quality of life, cognitive function and depression measures (parallel-group studies: Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) -3.83 units, 95% CI -4.57 to -3.09; crossover studies: ESS -1.84 units, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.11). Twenty-four hour systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower with CPAP compared with control (parallel-group trials). Compared with oral appliances, CPAP significantly reduced the apnoea and hypopnoea index (crossover studies: -7.97 events/hr, 95% CI -9.56 to -6.38) and improved sleep efficiency (crossover studies: 2.31%, 95% CI 0.02 to 4.6) and minimum oxygen saturation (4.14%, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.03). Responders to both treatments expressed a strong preference for the oral appliance. However, participants were more likely to withdraw on OA than on CPAP therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is effective in reducing symptoms of sleepiness and improving quality of life measures in people with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). It is more effective than oral appliances in reducing respiratory disturbances in these people but subjective outcomes are more equivocal. Certain people tend to prefer oral appliances to CPAP where both are effective. This could be because they offer a more convenient way of controlling OSA. Short-term data indicate that CPAP leads to lower blood pressure than in controls. Long-term data are required for all outcomes in order to determine whether the initial benefits seen in short-term clinical trials persist.

BACKGROUND: Although continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has become the standard of care in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), 2 systematic reviews have questioned its utility. Since the publication of these reviews, several randomized controlled trials have been reported. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to assess the effect of CPAP on subjective and objective sleepiness.

METHODS: We conducted a thorough literature search to identify all published randomized controlled trials of CPAP in patients with OSA. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic.

RESULTS: Twelve trials of CPAP in patients with OSA meeting our inclusion criteria were found. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was reported in 11 studies (706 patients). A meta-analysis found that CPAP reduced the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score an average of 2.94 points more than placebo (P<.001). The heterogeneity (Q10 = 57.7, P<.001) between studies could not be explained by differences in sex composition, mean age, mean body mass index, or country of study. Trials recruiting subjects with severe OSA plus sleepiness (mean apnea-hypopnea index,>or =30 events per hour; and mean Epworth Sleepiness Scale score,>or =11) had a greater decrease in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score than the other studies (4.75 vs 1.10; P<.001). Objective measures of sleepiness were reported in 8 trials (482 subjects). Continuous positive airway pressure increased sleep onset latency by 0.93 minute (P =.04) more than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS: Continuous positive airway pressure therapy significantly improves subjective and objective measures of sleepiness in patients with OSA across a diverse range of populations. Patients with more severe apnea and sleepiness seem to benefit the most.

We conducted a systematic review of current evidence on the effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS). The primary outcomes were subjective sleepiness, using Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and objective sleepiness using Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) and Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). Mean difference (MD) in endpoints was used to compare CPAP to usual care, placebo and dental devices. The analysis was stratified by symptom and disease severity at baseline. CPAP significantly reduced ESS score compared to control (MD -2.7, 95% CI -3.45, -1.96). The benefit was greatest in patients whose symptoms were severe at baseline: severely symptomatic population (MD -5.0, -6.5, -3.5); moderate (MD -2.3, -3.0, -1.6); mild (MD -1.1, -1.8, -0.3). CPAP significantly improved MWT score compared to control (MD 3.3, 1.3, 5.3) but not on the MSLT. There was no statistically significant difference between CPAP and dental devices on the ESS, MWT or MSLT, in a population with moderate symptoms. There was some evidence of benefit for blood pressure with CPAP compared to control. CPAP is an effective treatment for OSAHS in moderate to severe symptomatic patients and there may be benefits for mild symptoms. Dental devices may be a treatment option formoderate symptoms.

Almost all the information about the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) comes from clinical trials involving only middle-aged patients. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPAP treatment in elderly patients with severe OSA on clinical, quality-of-life and neurocognitive spheres.We performed an open-label, randomised, multicentre clinical trial in a consecutive clinical cohort of 224 elderly (≥70 years old) patients with confirmed severe OSA (apnoea-hypopnea index≥30) randomised to receive CPAP (n=115) or no CPAP (n=109) for 3 months. A sleep study was performed by either full polysomnography or respiratory polygraphy. CPAP titration was performed by an autoCPAP device. The primary endpoint was quality of life (Quebec Sleep Questionnaire) and secondary endpoints included sleep-related symptoms, presence of anxiety/depression, office-based blood pressure and some neurocognitive tests.The mean±sd age was 75.5±3.9 years. The CPAP group achieved a greater improvement in all quality-of-life domains (p<0.001; effect size: 0.41-0.98), sleep-related symptoms (p<0.001; effect size 0.31-0.91) as well as anxiety (p=0.016; effect size 0.51) and depression (p<0.001; effect size: 0.28) indexes and some neurocognitive tests (digit symbol test (p=0.047; effect size: 0.20) and Trail Making Test A (p=0.029; effect size: 0.44)) in an intention-to-treat analysis.In conclusion, CPAP treatment resulted in an improvement in quality of life, sleep-related symptoms, anxiety and depression indexes and some neurocognitive aspects in elderly people with severe OSA.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with an increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS), even in patients with morbid obesity. Our goal was to address whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment improved glucose metabolism in this population.

METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed in severe OSA patients with morbid obesity without diabetes in two university referral hospitals. Patients received conservative (CT) versus CPAP treatment for 12 weeks. MetS components, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and oral glucose tolerance were assessed at baseline and after treatment.

RESULTS: A total of 80 patients completed the study (42 CPAP and 38 CT patients). After 12 w of CPAP treatment, weight loss was similar in both groups and physical activity, prevalence of MetS, and HOMA-IR did not change in either group. In the CPAP group impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) reversed in nine patients and IGT developed in none, whereas IGT reversed in five patients and IGT developed in five patients in the CT group (P = 0.039 in the Fisher test). Changes in 2-h plasma glucose after glucose load were greater in the CPAP group than in the CT group (CPAP: -0.5±1.5 versus CT: 0.33±1.9, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS: The improvement of glucose tolerance in morbidly obese patients with severe obstructive sleep apnea, without changes in homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, supports an improvement in peripheral insulin resistance after continuous positive airway pressure treatment.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT 01029561.

RATIONALE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes that adversely impacts glycemic control. However, there is little evidence about the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on glycemic control in patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of CPAP on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes and OSA, and to identify its determinants.

METHODS: In a 6-month, open-label, parallel, and randomized clinical trial, 50 patients with OSA and type 2 diabetes and two HbA1c levels equal to or exceeding 6.5% were randomized to CPAP (n = 26) or no CPAP (control; n = 24), while their usual medication for diabetes remained unchanged.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: HbA1c levels, Homeostasis Model Assessment and Qualitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index scores, systemic biomarkers, and health-related quality of life were measured at 3 and 6 months. After 6 months, the CPAP group achieved a greater decrease in HbA1c levels compared with the control group. Insulin resistance and sensitivity measurements (in noninsulin users) and serum levels of IL-1β, IL-6, and adiponectin also improved in the CPAP group compared with the control group after 6 months. In patients treated with CPAP, mean nocturnal oxygen saturation and baseline IL-1βwere independently related to the 6-month change in HbA1c levels (r(2) = 0.510, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes and OSA, CPAP treatment for 6 months resulted in improved glycemic control and insulin resistance compared with results for a control group. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01801150).

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events; whether treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) prevents major cardiovascular events is uncertain.

METHODS: After a 1-week run-in period during which the participants used sham CPAP, we randomly assigned 2717 eligible adults between 45 and 75 years of age who had moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and coronary or cerebrovascular disease to receive CPAP treatment plus usual care (CPAP group) or usual care alone (usual-care group). The primary composite end point was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or transient ischemic attack. Secondary end points included other cardiovascular outcomes, health-related quality of life, snoring symptoms, daytime sleepiness, and mood.

RESULTS: Most of the participants were men who had moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and minimal sleepiness. In the CPAP group, the mean duration of adherence to CPAP therapy was 3.3 hours per night, and the mean apnea-hypopnea index (the number of apnea or hypopnea events per hour of recording) decreased from 29.0 events per hour at baseline to 3.7 events per hour during follow-up. After a mean follow-up of 3.7 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 229 participants in the CPAP group (17.0%) and in 207 participants in the usual-care group (15.4%) (hazard ratio with CPAP, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.32; P=0.34). No significant effect on any individual or other composite cardiovascular end point was observed. CPAP significantly reduced snoring and daytime sleepiness and improved health-related quality of life and mood.

CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with CPAP plus usual care, as compared with usual care alone, did not prevent cardiovascular events in patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and established cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SAVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00738179 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12608000409370 .).