RESUMO
Rationale: General practitioners play a passive role in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management. Simplification of the diagnosis and use of a semiautomatic algorithm for treatment can facilitate the integration of general practitioners, which has cost advantages.Objectives: To determine differences in effectiveness between primary health care area (PHA) and in-laboratory specialized management protocols during 6 months of follow-up.Methods: A multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial with two open parallel arms and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in six tertiary hospitals in Spain. Sequentially screened patients with an intermediate to high OSA probability were randomized to PHA or in-laboratory management. The PHA arm involved a portable monitor with automatic scoring and semiautomatic therapeutic decision-making. The in-laboratory arm included polysomnography and specialized therapeutic decision-making. Patients in both arms received continuous positive airway pressure treatment or sleep hygiene and dietary treatment alone. The primary outcome measure was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, blood pressure, incidence of cardiovascular events, hospital resource utilization, continuous positive airway pressure adherence, and within-trial costs.Measurements and Main Results: In total, 307 patients were randomized and 303 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Based on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the PHA protocol was noninferior to the in-laboratory protocol. Secondary outcome variables were similar between the protocols. The cost-effectiveness relationship favored the PHA arm, with a cost difference of 537.8 per patient.Conclusions: PHA management may be an alternative to in-laboratory management for patients with an intermediate to high OSA probability. Given the clear economic advantage of outpatient management, this finding could change established clinical practice.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02141165).
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: At least 10% of patients with Obsessive-compulsive Disorder (OCD) are refractory to psychopharmacological treatment. The emergence of new technologies for the modulation of altered neuronal activity in Neurosurgery, deep brain stimulation (DBS), has enabled its use in severe and refractory OCD cases. The objective of this article is to review the current scientific evidence on the effectiveness and applicability of this technique to refractory OCD. METHOD: We systematically reviewed the literature to identify the main characteristics of deep brain stimulation, its use and applicability as treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Therefore, we reviewed PubMed/Medline, Embase and PsycINFO databases, combining the key-words 'Deep brain stimulation', 'DBS' and 'Obsessive-compulsive disorder' 'OCS'. The articles were selected by two of the authors independently, based on the abstracts, and if they described any of the main characteristics of the therapy referring to OCD: applicability; mechanism of action; brain therapeutic targets; efficacy; side-effects; co-therapies. All the information was subsequently extracted and analysed. RESULTS: The critical analysis of the evidence shows that the use of DBS in treatment-resistant OCD is providing satisfactory results regarding efficacy, with assumable side-effects. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any single brain target over another. Patient selection has to be done following analyses of risks/benefits, being advisable to individualize the decision of continuing with concomitant psychopharmacological and psychological treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DBS is still considered to be in the field of research, although it is increasingly used in refractory-OCD, producing in the majority of studies significant improvements in symptomatology, and in functionality and quality of life. It is essential to implement random and controlled studies regarding its long-term efficacy, cost-risk analyses and cost/benefit.