RESUMO
Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is frequent among patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and can persist despite the optimal correction of respiratory events (apnea, hypopnea and respiratory efforts), using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or mandibular advancement device. Symptoms like apathy and fatigue may be mistaken for EDS. In addition, EDS has multi-factorial origin, which makes its evaluation complex. The marketing authorization [Autorisation de Mise sur le Marché (AMM)] for two wake-promoting agents (solriamfetol and pitolisant) raises several practical issues for clinicians. This consensus paper presents recommendations of good clinical practice to identify and evaluate EDS in this context, and to manage and follow-up the patients. It was conducted under the mandate of the French Societies for sleep medicine and for pneumology [Société Française de Recherche et de Médecine du Sommeil (SFRMS) and Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française (SPLF)]. A management algorithm is suggested, as well as a list of conditions during which the patient should be referred to a sleep center or a sleep specialist. The benefit/risk balance of a wake-promoting drug in residual EDS in OSAHS patients must be regularly reevaluated, especially in elderly patients with increased cardiovascular and psychiatric disorders risks. This consensus is based on the scientific knowledge at the time of the publication and may be revised according to their evolution.
RESUMO
Background: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome is a common sleep-breathing disorder associated with adverse health outcomes including excessive daytime sleepiness, impaired quality of life and is well-established as a cardiovascular risk factor. Continuous positive airway pressure is the reference treatment, but its cardiovascular and metabolic benefits are still debated. Combined interventions aiming at improving patient's lifestyle behaviours are recommended in guidelines management of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome but adherence decreases over time and access to rehabilitation programmes is limited. Telerehabilitation is a promising approach to address these issues, but data are scarce on obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Methods: The aim of this study is to assess the potential benefits of a telerehabilitation programme implemented at continuous positive airway pressure initiation, compared to continuous positive airway pressure alone and usual care, on symptoms and cardiometabolic risk factors of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. This study is a 6-months multicentre randomized, parallel controlled trial during which 180 obese patients with severe obstructive sleep apnea syndrome will be included. We will use a sequential hierarchical criterion for major endpoints including sleepiness, quality of life, nocturnal systolic blood pressure and inflammation biological parameters. Discussion: m-Rehab obstructive sleep apnea syndrome is the first multicentre randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of a telerehabilitation lifestyle programme in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. We hypothesize that a telerehabilitation lifestyle intervention associated with continuous positive airway pressure for 6 months will be more efficient than continuous positive airway pressure alone on symptoms, quality of life and cardiometabolic risk profile. Main secondary outcomes include continuous positive airway pressure adherence, usability and satisfaction with the telerehabilitation platform and medico-economic evaluation. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT05049928. Registration data: 20 September 2021.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patient skepticism concerning medical innovations can have major consequences for current public health and may threaten future progress, which greatly relies on clinical research. The primary objective of this study is to determine the variables associated with patient acceptation or refusal to participate in clinical research. Specifically, we sought to evaluate if distrust in pharmaceutical companies and associated psychosocial factors could represent a recruitment bias in clinical trials and thus threaten the applicability of their results. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter survey consisted in the administration of a self-questionnaire to patients during a pulmonology consultation. The 1025 questionnaires distributed collected demographics, socio-professional and basic health literacy characteristics. Patients were asked to rank their level of trust for pharmaceutical companies and indicate their willingness to participate in different categories of research (pre or post marketing, sponsored by an academic institution or pharmaceutical company). Logistic regression was used to determine factors contributing to "trust" versus "distrust" group membership and willingness to participate in each category of research. RESULTS: One thousand patients completed the survey, corresponding to a response rate of 97.5%. Data from 838 patients were analyzed in this study. 48.3% of respondents declared that they trusted pharmaceutical companies, while 35.5% declared distrust. Being female (p = 0.042), inactive in the employment market(p = 0.007), and not-knowing the name of one's disease(p = 0.010) are factors related to declared distrust. Distrust-group membership is associated with unwillingness to participate in certain categories of trials such as pre-marketing and industry-sponsored trials. CONCLUSION: Distrust in pharmaceutical companies is associated with a specific patient profile and with refusal to participate in certain subcategories of trials. This potential recruitment bias may explain the under-representation of certain categories of patients such as women in pre-marketing drug trials.