Fit-Tested N95 Masks Combined With Portable High-Efficiency Particulate Air Filtration Can Protect Against High Aerosolized Viral Loads Over Prolonged Periods at Close Range.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk from aerosol transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The aims of this study were to (1) quantify the protection provided by masks (surgical, fit-testFAILED N95, fit-testPASSED N95) and personal protective equipment (PPE), and (2) determine if a portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter can enhance the benefit of PPE. METHODS: Virus aerosol exposure experiments using bacteriophage PhiX174 were performed. An HCW wearing PPE (mask, gloves, gown, face shield) was exposed to nebulized viruses (108 copies/mL) for 40 minutes in a sealed clinical room. Virus exposure was quantified via skin swabs applied to the face, nostrils, forearms, neck, and forehead. Experiments were repeated with a HEPA filter (13.4 volume-filtrations/hour). RESULTS: Significant virus counts were detected on the face while the participants were wearing either surgical or N95 masks. Only the fit-testPASSED N95 resulted in lower virus counts compared to control (P = .007). Nasal swabs demonstrated high virus exposure, which was not mitigated by the surgical/fit-testFAILED N95 masks, although there was a trend for the fit-testPASSED N95 mask to reduce virus counts (P = .058). HEPA filtration reduced virus to near-zero levels when combined with fit-testPASSED N95 mask, gloves, gown, and face shield. CONCLUSIONS: N95 masks that have passed a quantitative fit-test combined with HEPA filtration protects against high virus aerosol loads at close range and for prolonged periods of time.

Examining the impact of multilevel upper airway surgery on the obstructive sleep apnoea endotypes and their utility in predicting surgical outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Upper airway surgery for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is an alternative treatment for patients who are intolerant of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, upper airway surgery has variable treatment efficacy with no reliable predictors of response. While we now know that there are several endotypes contributing to OSA (i.e., upper airway collapsibility, airway muscle response/compensation, respiratory arousal threshold and loop gain), no study to date has examined: (i) how upper airway surgery affects all four OSA endotypes, (ii) whether knowledge of baseline OSA endotypes predicts response to surgery and (iii) whether there are any differences when OSA endotypes are measured using the CPAP dial-down or clinical polysomnographic (PSG) methods. METHODS: We prospectively studied 23 OSA patients before and ≥3 months after multilevel upper airway surgery. Participants underwent clinical and research PSG to measure OSA severity (apnoea-hypopnoea index [AHI]) and endotypes (measured in supine non-rapid eye movement [NREM]). Values are presented as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: Surgery reduced the AHITotal (38.7 [23.4 to 79.2] vs. 22.0 [13.3 to 53.5] events/h; p = 0.009). There were no significant changes in OSA endotypes, however, large but variable improvements in collapsibility were observed (CPAP dial-down method: ∆1.9 ± 4.9 L/min, p = 0.09, n = 21; PSG method: ∆3.4 [-2.8 to 49.0]%Veupnoea , p = 0.06, n = 20). Improvement in collapsibility strongly correlated with improvement in AHI (%∆AHISupineNREM vs. ∆collapsibility: p < 0.005; R2  = 0.46-0.48). None of the baseline OSA endotypes predicted response to surgery. CONCLUSION: Surgery unpredictably alters upper airway collapsibility but does not alter the non-anatomical endotypes. There are no baseline predictors of response to surgery.

Viable virus aerosol propagation by positive airway pressure circuit leak and mitigation with a ventilated patient hood.

INTRODUCTION: Nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a major feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests patients can auto-emit aerosols containing viable viruses; these aerosols could be further propagated when patients undergo certain treatments, including continuous positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. Our aim was to assess 1) the degree of viable virus propagated from PAP circuit mask leak and 2) the efficacy of a ventilated plastic canopy to mitigate virus propagation. METHODS: Bacteriophage phiX174 (108 copies·mL-1) was nebulised into a custom PAP circuit. Mask leak was systematically varied at the mask interface. Plates containing Escherichia coli host quantified viable virus (via plaque forming unit) settling on surfaces around the room. The efficacy of a low-cost ventilated headboard created from a tarpaulin hood and a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter was tested. RESULTS: Mask leak was associated with virus contamination in a dose-dependent manner (χ2=58.24, df=4, p<0.001). Moderate mask leak (≥21 L·min-1) was associated with virus counts equivalent to using PAP with a vented mask. The highest frequency of viruses was detected on surfaces <1 m away; however, viable viruses were recorded up to 3.86 m from the source. A plastic hood with HEPA filtration significantly reduced viable viruses on all plates. HEPA exchange rates ≥170 m3·h-1 eradicated all evidence of virus contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Mask leak from PAP may be a major source of environmental contamination and nosocomial spread of infectious respiratory diseases. Subclinical mask leak levels should be treated as an infectious risk. Low-cost patient hoods with HEPA filtration are an effective countermeasure.

A consensus opinion amongst stakeholders as to benefits of obstructive sleep apnoea treatment for cardiovascular health.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a prevalent sleep disorder associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Whether treatment of OSA improves cardiovascular risk remains controversial. Our aim was to determine a consensus opinion of key sleep medicine stakeholder groups as to the cardiovascular benefits of treating moderate-severe OSA. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was assembled from representatives from the Australasian Sleep Association, Sleep Health Foundation, Australasian Sleep Technologists Association, the Sleep Health Foundation Business Council and the Sleep Disorders Australia patient support group. Three statements reflecting areas of controversy related to cardiovascular benefits of OSA treatment were created. A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was applied determining the panel's level of consensus and agreement with each statement. RESULTS: Voting results indicated the panel: (1) remained unsure whether moderate-severe OSA treatment improves rates of cardiovascular events/death, (2) agreed that moderate-severe OSA treatment improves blood pressure in patients with hypertension and (3) mostly agreed that moderate-severe OSA treatment improves left ventricular function in patients with heart failure. Consensus of opinion was achieved for statements (1) and (2), but was narrowly missed for statement (3). CONCLUSION: The panel believed that findings from large-scale randomized trials indicate that treatment of moderate-severe OSA has not been established to improve cardiovascular event or morbidity/mortality rates. Strong evidence supports the ability of treatment to reduce blood pressure. Whilst many panel members believed that treatment improves left ventricular function, some were uncertain of the clinical significance of this secondary endpoint measure derived from lesser quality evidence.

Dynamic loop gain increases upon adopting the supine body position during sleep in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is typically worse in the supine versus lateral sleeping position. One potential factor driving this observation is a decrease in lung volume in the supine position which is expected by theory to increase a key OSA pathogenic factor: dynamic ventilatory control instability (i.e. loop gain). We aimed to quantify dynamic loop gain in OSA patients in the lateral and supine positions, and to explore the relationship between change in dynamic loop gain and change in lung volume with position. METHODS: Data from 20 patients enrolled in previous studies on the effect of body position on OSA pathogenesis were retrospectively analysed. Dynamic loop gain was calculated from routinely collected polysomnographic signals using a previously validated mathematical model. Lung volumes were measured in the awake state with a nitrogen washout technique. RESULTS: Dynamic loop gain was significantly higher in the supine than in the lateral position (0.77 ± 0.15 vs 0.68 ± 0.14, P = 0.012). Supine functional residual capacity (FRC) was significantly lower than lateral FRC (81.0 ± 15.4% vs 87.3 ± 18.4% of the seated FRC, P = 0.021). The reduced FRC we observed on moving to the supine position was predicted by theory to increase loop gain by 10.2 (0.6, 17.1)%, a value similar to the observed increase of 8.4 (-1.5, 31.0)%. CONCLUSION: Dynamic loop gain increased by a small but statistically significant amount when moving from the lateral to supine position and this may, in part, contribute to the worsening of OSA in the supine sleeping position.

Response to a combination of oxygen and a hypnotic as treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea is predicted by a patient's therapeutic CPAP requirement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Upper airway collapsibility predicts the response to several non-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) interventions for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Measures of upper airway collapsibility cannot be easily performed in a clinical context; however, a patient's therapeutic CPAP requirement may serve as a surrogate measure of collapsibility. The present work aimed to compare the predictive use of CPAP level with detailed physiological measures of collapsibility. METHODS: Therapeutic CPAP levels and gold-standard pharyngeal collapsibility measures (passive pharyngeal critical closing pressure (Pcrit ) and ventilation at CPAP level of 0 cmH2 O (Vpassive )) were retrospectively analysed from a randomized controlled trial (n = 20) comparing the combination of oxygen and eszopiclone (treatment) versus placebo/air control. Responders (9/20) to treatment were defined as those who exhibited a 50% reduction in apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) plus an AHI<15 events/h on-therapy. RESULTS: Responders to treatment had a lower therapeutic CPAP requirement compared with non-responders (6.6 (5.4-8.1) cmH2 O vs 8.9 (8.4-10.4) cmH2 O, P = 0.007), consistent with their reduced collapsibility (lower Pcrit , P = 0.017, higher Vpassive P = 0.025). Therapeutic CPAP level provided the highest predictive accuracy for differentiating responders from non-responders (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.86 ± 0.9, 95% CI: 0.68-1.00, P = 0.007). However, both Pcrit (AUC = 0.83 ± 0.11, 95% CI: 0.62-1.00, P = 0.017) and Vpassive (AUC = 0.77 ± 0.12, 95% CI: 0.53-1.00, P = 0.44) performed well, and the difference in AUC for these three metrics was not statistically different. A therapeutic CPAP level ≤8 cmH2 O provided 78% sensitivity and 82% specificity (positive predictive value = 78%, negative predictive value = 82%) for predicting a response to these therapies. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic CPAP requirement, as a surrogate measure of pharyngeal collapsibility, predicts the response to non-anatomical therapy (oxygen and eszopiclone) for OSA.

The obstructive sleep apnoea endotypes are similar in elderly trauma-exposed veterans with and without diagnosed PTSD.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 60% of veterans living with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) experience obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Why OSA is so prevalent in individuals with PTSD remains unknown, though PTSD may influence the underlying endotypes known to cause OSA. We examined whether these endotypes (upper airway collapsibility, muscle compensation, loop gain, and the arousal threshold) differ between those with comorbid OSA and PTSD relative to their counterparts with OSA-only. METHODS: Using the ventilatory flow pattern from diagnostic polysomnography, the OSA endotypes were measured in a retrospective cohort of 21 OSA patients with PTSD and 27 OSA-only patients. All participants were trauma exposed elderly male Australian Vietnam War veterans with mild-to-severe OSA (median Apnoea-Hypopnea index: 20.2 vs. 23.6 events/h). Age and BMI were similar between groups (70.7 vs. 71.7 years, and 28.4 vs. 28.4 kg/m2). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the OSA endotype traits between PTSD + OSA and OSA-only patients for upper airway collapsibility (76.68 [71.53-83.56] vs. 78.35 [72.81-83.82] %Veupnea, median [IQR]), muscle compensation (4.27 [0.34-9.18] vs. 5.41 [1.83-7.21] %Veupnea), loop gain (0.56(0.17) vs. 0.60(0.14)), and arousal threshold (135.76 [126.59-147.54] vs. 146.95 [128.64-151.28] %Veupnea). CONCLUSION: The OSA endotypes in veterans with PTSD were similar to their trauma exposed OSA-only counterparts. PTSD appears to exert little influence on the OSA endotypes beyond the effect that age and trauma exposure may have. The aetiology of increased prevalence of OSA in PTSD remains unclear. Further work examining OSA endotypes using larger and more diverse samples is needed before robust conclusions can be made.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea Is a Distinct Physiological Endotype in Individuals with Comorbid Insomnia and Sleep Apnea.

Rationale: With up to 40% of individuals with either insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) demonstrating clinically significant symptoms of the other disorder, the high degree of comorbidity among the two most common sleep disorders suggests a bidirectional relationship and/or shared underpinnings. Although the presence of insomnia disorder is believed to influence the underlying pathophysiology of OSA, this influence is yet to be examined directly. Objectives: To investigate whether the four OSA endotypes (upper airway collapsibility, muscle compensation, loop gain, and the arousal threshold) are different in patients with OSA with and without comorbid insomnia disorder. Methods: Using the ventilatory flow pattern captured from routine polysomnography, the four OSA endotypes were measured in 34 patients with OSA who met the diagnostic criteria for insomnia disorder (COMISA) and 34 patients with OSA without insomnia (OSA only). Patients demonstrated mild-to-severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index, 25.8 ± 2.0 events/h) and were individually matched according to age (50.2 ± 1.5 yr), sex (42 male: 26 female), and body mass index (29.3 ± 0.6 kg/m2). Results: Compared with patients with OSA without comorbid insomnia, patients with COMISA demonstrated significantly lower respiratory arousal thresholds (128.9 [118.1 to 137.1] vs. 147.7 [132.3 to 165.0] % eupneic ventilation ([Formula: see text]); U = 261; 95% confidence interval [CI], -38.3 to -13.9; d = 1.1; P < 0.001), less collapsible upper airways (88.2 [85.5 to 94.6] vs. 72.9 [64.7 to 79.2] %[Formula: see text]; U = 1081; 95% CI, 14.0 to 26.7; d = 2.3; P < 0.001), and more stable ventilatory control (i.e., lower loop gain: 0.51 [0.44 to 0.56] vs. 0.58 [0.49 to 0.70]; U = 402; 95% CI, -0.2 to -0.01; d = 0.05; P = 0.03). Muscle compensation was similar between groups. Moderated linear regression revealed that the arousal threshold moderated the relationship between collapsibility and OSA severity in patients with COMISA but not in patients with OSA only. Conclusions: A low arousal threshold is an overrepresented endotypic trait in individuals with COMISA and may exhibit a greater relative contribution to OSA pathogenesis in these patients. Contrastingly, the prevalence of a highly collapsible upper airway in COMISA was low, suggesting that anatomical predisposition may contribute less to OSA development in COMISA. Based on our findings, we theorize that conditioned hyperarousal perpetuating insomnia may translate to a reduced arousal threshold to respiratory events, thereby increasing the risk or severity of OSA. Therapies that target increased nocturnal hyperarousal (e.g., through cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia) may be effective in individuals with COMISA. Clinical trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12616000586415).

A review of supine position related obstructive sleep apnea: Classification, epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment.

Supine related obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the most common clinical and physiological phenotype of OSA. This condition is recognizable by patients, their families and through polysomnographic recordings. Commonly used definitions distinguish the presence of supine related OSA when respiratory events occur at twice the frequency when the patient lies in the supine compared to non-supine sleeping positions. Recent physiology studies have demonstrated that airway obstruction arises more commonly in the supine position particularly at the level of the soft palate and epiglottis. Increased airway collapsibility is reliability observed supine relative to lateral position. To a lesser extent, changes in control of breathing favour less stable ventilation when the supine sleeping posture is adopted. Many treatments have been developed and trialled to help patients avoid sleeping on their back. The last 10 years has seen the emergence of vibrotactile warning devices that are worn on the patients' neck or chest. High quality randomized controlled trial data is accumulating on the efficacy and common pitfalls of the application of these treatments.

Oronasal vs Nasal Masks: The Impact of Mask Type on CPAP Requirement, Pharyngeal Critical Closing Pressure (Pcrit), and Upper Airway Cross-Sectional Areas in Patients With OSA.

BACKGROUND: CPAP delivered via an oronasal mask is associated with lower adherence, higher residual apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), and increased CPAP therapeutic pressure compared with nasal masks. However, the mechanisms underlying the increased pressure requirements are not well understood. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do oronasal masks affect upper airway anatomy and collapsibility? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with OSA underwent a sleep study with both a nasal and oronasal mask, each for one-half of the night (order randomized). CPAP was manually titrated to determine therapeutic pressure. Upper airway collapsibility was assessed using the pharyngeal critical closing pressure (Pcrit) technique. Cine MRI was done to dynamically assess the cross-sectional area of the retroglossal and retropalatal airway throughout the respiratory cycle with each mask interface. Scans were repeated at 4 cm H2O and at the nasal and oronasal therapeutic pressures. RESULTS: The oronasal mask was associated with higher therapeutic pressure requirements (ΔM ± SEM; +2.6 ± 0.5; P < .001) and higher Pcrit (+2.4 ± 0.5 cm H2O; P = .001) compared with the nasal mask. The change in therapeutic pressure between masks was strongly correlated with the change in Pcrit (r2 = 0.73; P = .003). Increasing CPAP increased both the retroglossal and retropalatal airway dimensions across both masks. After controlling for pressure and breath phase, the retropalatal cross-sectional area was moderately larger when using a nasal vs an oronasal mask (+17.2 mm2; 95% CI, 6.2-28.2, P < .001) while nasal breathing. INTERPRETATION: Oronasal masks are associated with a more collapsible airway than nasal masks, which likely contributes to the need for a higher therapeutic pressure.

Body position during laboratory and home polysomnography compared to habitual sleeping position at home.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Supine-predominant obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent. The proportion of time spent in the supine position may be overrepresented during polysomnography, which would impact on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and have important clinical implications. We aimed to investigate the difference in body position during laboratory or home polysomnography compared to habitual sleep and estimate its effect on OSA severity. Secondary aims were to evaluate the consistency of habitual sleeping position and accuracy of self-reported sleeping position. METHODS: Patients undergoing diagnostic laboratory or home polysomnography were recruited. Body position was recorded using a neck-worn device. Habitual sleeping position was the average time spent supine over 3 consecutive nights at home. Primary outcomes were the proportion of sleep time spent supine (% time supine) and AHI adjusted for habitual sleeping position. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients who underwent laboratory polysomnography and 56 who had home polysomnography were included. Compared to habitual sleep, % time supine was higher during laboratory polysomnography (mean difference 14.1% [95% confidence interval: 7.2-21.1]; P = .0002) and home polysomnography (7.1% [95% confidence interval 0.9-13.3]; P = .03). Among those with supine-predominant OSA, there was a trend toward lower adjusted AHI than polysomnography-derived AHI (P = .07), changing OSA severity in 31.6%. There was no significant between-night difference in % time supine during habitual sleep (P = .4). Self-reported % time supine was inaccurate (95% limits of agreement -49.2% to 53.9%). CONCLUSIONS: More time was spent in the supine position during polysomnography compared to habitual sleep, which may overestimate OSA severity for almost one-third of patients with supine-predominant OSA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR); Title: Sleeping position during sleep tests and at home; Identifier: ACTRN12618000628246; URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374873&isReview=true. CITATION: Yo SW, Joosten SA, Wimaleswaran H, et al. Body position during laboratory and home polysomnography compared to habitual sleeping position at home. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(9):2103-2111.

A single dose of noradrenergic/serotonergic reuptake inhibitors combined with an antimuscarinic does not improve obstructive sleep apnoea severity.

Previous trials have demonstrated that the combination of noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors with an antimuscarinic can substantially reduce the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) and improve airway collapsibility in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, some studies have shown that when administered individually, neither noradrenergic or serotonergic agents have been effective at alleviating OSA. This raises the possibility that serotonergic agents (like noradrenergic agents) may also need to be delivered in combination to be efficacious. Therefore, we investigated the effect of an antimuscarinic (oxybutynin) on OSA severity when administered with either duloxetine or milnacipran, two dual noradrenergic/serotonergic reuptake inhibiters. A randomized, double-blind, 4 way cross-over, placebo-controlled trial in ten OSA patients was performed. Patients received each drug condition separately across four overnight in-lab polysomnography (PSG) studies ~1-week apart. The primary outcome measure was the AHI. In addition, the four key OSA endotypes (collapsibility, muscle compensation, arousal threshold, loop gain) were measured non-invasively from the PSGs using validated techniques. There was no significant effect of either drug combinations on reducing the total AHI or improving any of the key OSA endotypes. However, duloxetine+oxybutynin did significantly increase the fraction of hypopnoeas to apnoeas (FHypopnoea ) compared to placebo (p = 0.02; d = 0.54). In addition, duloxetine+oxybutynin reduced time in REM sleep (p = 0.009; d = 1.03) which was positively associated with a reduction in the total AHI (R2  = 0.62; p = 0.02). Neither drug combination significantly improved OSA severity or modified the key OSA endotypes when administered as a single dose to unselected OSA patients.

Considering the Role of Adherence in New and Emerging Sleep Treatments.

There are several novel and emerging treatments for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), including new devices and pharmacotherapies. Long-term efficacy and adherence data for these interventions in the sleep context are lacking. Future studies exploring the long-term adherence and efficacy in novel and emerging treatments of OSA are required to fully understand the place of these treatments in treatment hierarchies. Such research also should aim to evaluate the use of these novel therapies in real-world clinical settings, because many of the studies performed to date have been done under closely monitored research populations and relatively small sample sizes.