Fixed and autoadjusting continuous positive airway pressure treatments are not similar in reducing cardiovascular risk factors in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

BACKGROUND: A strong association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and the risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases has been reported. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first-line therapy for OSA, able not only to reduce daytime sleepiness but also to improve cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes. Autoadjusting CPAP (APAP), an alternative treatment to CPAP, can reduce OSA symptoms while increasing long-term CPAP compliance without the high costs of CPAP titration. However, no data are available on the effects of APAP on cardiovascular risk factors METHODS: We performed standard full polysomnography; obtained plasma levels of glucose, insulin, and C-reactive protein (CRP); and measured systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in 31 patients with newly diagnosed, severe OSA. After standard CPAP titration, all subjects were randomized to CPAP or APAP treatment. Measurements were obtained at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. RESULTS: The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and severity of OSA. SBP, DBP, heart rate (HR), homeostasis model assessment index (HOMA-IR), and CRP were similar in the two groups. After 3 months of treatment, BMI, HR, and compliance to therapy were also comparable. OSA indexes were significantly reduced in both groups. Significant reductions in SBP, DBP, and HOMA-IR were observed in the CPAP group but not in the APAP group, while CRP plasma levels were similarly reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CPAP and APAP, despite significant effects on OSA indexes and symptoms, do not improve cardiovascular risk factors in the same fashion.

Long-term adherence to CPAP treatment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: importance of educational program.

BACKGROUND: Lack of adherence with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is the major cause of treatment failure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. We evaluated the effectiveness of our intensive educational program on adherence in the short term and the long term. METHODS: THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM CONSISTED OF: intensive training, whereby each patient performed individual and collective sessions of three hours receiving information about obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, familiarizing themselves with CPAP tools, on six consecutive days; long-term training; and support meetings, with reassessment at three months and one year. RESULTS: In 202 patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, the mean (standard deviation) apnea/hypopnea index was 45 ± 22, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was 14 ± 5, and the average titration pressure was 10 ± 2 cm H(2)O. At three months, 166 patients (82%) used CPAP for an average of 7.3 hours per night. At one year, 162 (80%) used CPAP for about seven hours per night. At two years, 92 patients (43%) used CPAP for about five hours per night. The level of satisfaction remained higher in patients in ventilation. CONCLUSION: Our data show strong adherence to CPAP at three months and one year, with a decrease at two years. The initial educational program seems to play an important role in adherence. This effect is lost in the long term, suggesting that periodic reinforcement of educational support would be helpful.

Inhalation technique and variables associated with misuse of conventional metered-dose inhalers and newer dry powder inhalers in experienced adults.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) are often poorly used, but little information is available concerning use of the newer dry powder inhalers (DPIs). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the inhalation technique and variables associated with the misuse of pMDIs and newer DPIs in clinical practice. METHODS: A multicenter, observational survey was used to evaluate the inhalation technique in 1,404 experienced outpatients aged 15 to 88 years affected mostly by asthma (47%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (39%). A total of 1,056 patients were using pMDIs, 190 in conjunction with a large volume spacer (LVS); regarding DPIs, 230 patients were using the Aerolizer Inhaler, 524 were using the Turbuhaler, and 475 were using the Diskus. In each center, a trained observer recorded patients' inhalation techniques for each inhaler used against a standardized step-by-step checklist. RESULTS: Twenty-four percent and 3% of patients used pMDIs poorly, alone or with an add-on LVS, respectively. Failure to correctly perform essential steps for reliable lung delivery with the Aerolizer Inhaler, Turbuhaler, and Diskus was found in 17%, 23%, and 24% of patients, respectively. There was no difference in most variables correlated with poor inhalation between patients using pMDIs and those using DPIs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DPIs is associated with a similar percentage of inadequate inhalation technique as the use of pMDIs in clinical practice. The addition of an LVS to a pMDI and education from health care personnel, rather than simply changing inhalers, represent the best strategies for minimizing poor inhalation technique.