Intra- and Inter-Physician Agreement in Therapeutic Decision for Sleep Apnea Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Large variation in diagnostic procedures and treatment recommendations may hinder the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and also compromise correct interpretation of the results of multicenter clinical trials, especially in subjects with non-severe OSA. The aim of this study was to analyze the therapeutic decision-making between different sleep physicians in patients with AHI<40events/h. METHODS: Six experienced senior sleep specialists from different sleep centers of Spain were asked to make a therapeutic decision (CPAP treatment) based on anonymized recordings of patients with suspected OSA that has previously performed a sleep study. The clinical data was shown in an online database and included anthropometric features, clinical questionnaires, comorbidities, physical examination and sleep study results. Intra- and inter-observer decision-making were analyzed by the Fleiss' Kappa statistics (Kappa). RESULTS: A total of 720 medical decisions were taken to analyze the agreement between sleep professionals. Overall intra-observer evaluation reliability was almost perfect (Kappa=0.83, 95% CI, 0.75-0.90, p<0.001). However, overall inter-observer concordance decreased to moderate agreement (Kappa=0.46, 95% CI, 0.42-0.51, p<0.001). Nevertheless, it was especially low when considering AHI<15events/h. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a good intra-observer concordance in the therapeutic decision-making of different sleep physicians treating patients with low/moderate OSA. However, when analyzing inter-observer agreement the results were considerably worse. These findings underline the importance of developing improved consensus management protocols.

Management of obstructive sleep apnoea in a primary care vs sleep unit setting: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary care (PC) and sleep unit (SU) models for the management of subjects with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). METHODS: Multicentre, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 302 subjects with suspected OSA and/or resistant hypertension were consecutively enrolled, 149 were treated at 11 PC units and 153 patients at a SU. The primary outcomes were a 6-month change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score and Health Utilities Index (HUI). The non-inferiority margin for the ESS score was -2.0. RESULTS: A total of 80.2% and 70.6% of the PC and SU patients were diagnosed with OSA, respectively, and 59.3% and 60.4% of those were treated with CPAP in PC and SU units, respectively. The Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index was similar between the groups (PC vs SU (median (IQR); 23.1 (26.8) events/h vs 21.8 (35.2) events/h), and the baseline ESS score was higher in the PC than in the SU group (10.3 (6.6) vs 9 (7.2)). After 6 months, the ESS score of the PC group decreased from a mean of 10.1 to 7.6 (-2.49; 95% CI -3.3 to -1.69), and that of the SU group decreased from 8.85 to 5.73 (-3.11; 95% CI -3.94 to 2.28). The adjusted difference between groups for the mean change in the ESS score was -1.25 (one-sided 95% CI -1.88; p=0.025), supporting the non-inferiority of PC management. We did not observe differences in the HUI between groups. The cost analysis showed a median savings of €558.14/patient for the PC setting compared with the SU setting. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suspected OSA, the PC model did not result in a worse ESS score or HUI than the specialist model and generated savings in terms of management cost. Therefore, the PC model was more cost-efficient than the SU model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Results; >>NCT02234765, Clinical Trials.gov.

Predictors of CPAP compliance in different clinical settings: primary care versus sleep unit.

BACKGROUND: Good adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment improves the patient's quality of life and decreases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Previous studies that have analyzed the adherence to CPAP were performed in a sleep unit (SU) setting. The involvement of primary care (PC) in the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients receiving CPAP treatment could introduce factors related to the adherence to treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare the baseline predictors of CPAP compliance in SU and PC settings. METHODS: OSA patients treated with CPAP were followed for 6 months in SU or PC setting. We included baseline clinical and anthropometrical variables, the Epworth Sleep Scale (ESS) score, the quality of life index, and the Charlson index. A logistic regression was performed for each group to determine the CPAP compliance predictors. Discrimination and calibration were performed using the area under the curve and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests. RESULTS: We included 191 patients: 91 in the PC group and 100 in the SU group. In 74.9% of the patients, the compliance was ≥ 4 h per day, with 80% compliance in the SU setting and 69.2% compliance in the PC setting (p = 0.087). The predictors of CPAP compliance were different between SU and PC settings. Body mass index, ESS, and CPAP pressure were predictors in the SU setting, and ESS, gender, and waist circumference were predictors in the PC setting. CONCLUSIONS: The predictors of adequate CPAP compliance vary between SU and PC settings. Detecting compliance predictors could help in the planning of early interventions to improve CPAP adherence.