Association of Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation With Improvements in Long-term, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Comparison With Positive Airway Pressure for Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Importance: Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) and positive airway pressure (PAP) have been shown to improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, to our knowledge, there are no data that compare change in PROs between HNS and PAP or that indicate whether HNS improves comorbid insomnia or depression in the long term. Objectives: To determine whether HNS is associated with improvements in patient-reported sleepiness, insomnia, and depression in the long term and to compare the respective associations of HNS and PAP with improved PROs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated at the Cleveland Clinic for OSA. Participants received either HNS (referred sample) from November 1, 2015, to September 31, 2018, or PAP (previous cohort) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, for OSA. Patients were matched 3:1 for PAP:HNS based on age, body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), sex, and apnea hypopnea index (AHI). Data were collected at baseline and at prespecified follow-up points. Data were analyzed from March 26, 2020, to September 9, 2021. Exposures: Treatment with HNS vs PAP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data collected included AHI and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; depression) scores. Results: Among 85 patients receiving HNS (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [9.5] years; 59 men [69.4%]; 77 White patients [90.6%]; mean [SD] BMI, 28.8 [3.1]), compared with 217 matched patients receiving PAP (mean [SD] age, 62.1 [9.9] years; 157 men [72.4%]; 173 White patients [81.2%]; mean [SD] BMI, 29.5 [3.1]) included in the analysis, significant improvements were seen in PHQ-9 scores for HNS vs PAP (least square means, -4.06 [95% CI, -5.34 to -2.79] vs -2.58 [95% CI, -3.35 to -1.82]; mean difference, -1.48 [95% CI, -2.78 to -0.19]) with comparable improvements in ESS, FOSQ, and ISI scores. Clinically meaningful differences were observed in 42 of 65 HNS group patients (64.6%) vs 118 PAP group patients (54.5%) for ESS scores, 29 of 49 HNS group patients (59.2%) vs 67 of 217 PAP group patients (30.9%) for FOSQ scores, 14 of 48 HNS group patients (29.2%) vs 53 of 217 PAP group patients (24.4%) for PHQ-9 scores, and 23 of 49 HNS group patients (46.9%) vs 79 of 217 PAP group patients (36.4%) for ISI scores. At the 1-year post-HNS assessment, meaningful improvements were seen in 17 of 28 patients (60.7%) for ESS scores, 11 of 20 patients (55.0%) for FOSQ scores, 7 of 23 patients (30.4%) for PHQ-9 scores, and 11 of 25 patients (44.0%) for ISI scores. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with OSA, sustained improvements in PROs were observed 1 year after HNS and were comparable to those for PAP at 3 months. These findings suggest that HNS is a viable treatment for improving insomnia and depression in patients with OSA.

Association of Sleep-Related Hypoxia With Risk of COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Mortality in a Large Integrated Health System.

Importance: The influence of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and sleep-related hypoxemia in SARS-CoV-2 viral infection and COVID-19 outcomes remains unknown. Controversy exists regarding whether to continue treatment for SDB with positive airway pressure given concern for aerosolization with limited data to inform professional society recommendations. Objective: To investigate the association of SDB (identified via polysomnogram) and sleep-related hypoxia with (1) SARS-CoV-2 positivity and (2) World Health Organization (WHO)-designated COVID-19 clinical outcomes while accounting for confounding including obesity, underlying cardiopulmonary disease, cancer, and smoking history. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study was conducted within the Cleveland Clinic Health System (Ohio and Florida) and included all patients who were tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and November 30, 2020, and who had an available sleep study record. Sleep indices and SARS-CoV-2 positivity were assessed with overlap propensity score weighting, and COVID-19 clinical outcomes were assessed using the institutional registry. Exposures: Sleep study-identified SDB (defined by frequency of apneas and hypopneas using the Apnea-Hypopnea Index [AHI]) and sleep-related hypoxemia (percentage of total sleep time at <90% oxygen saturation [TST <90]). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection and WHO-designated COVID-19 clinical outcomes (hospitalization, use of supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and death). Results: Of 350 710 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2, 5402 (mean [SD] age, 56.4 [14.5] years; 3005 women [55.6%]) had a prior sleep study, of whom 1935 (35.8%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 5402 participants, 1696 were Black (31.4%), 3259 were White (60.3%), and 822 were of other race or ethnicity (15.2%). Patients who were positive vs negative for SARS-CoV-2 had a higher AHI score (median, 16.2 events/h [IQR, 6.1-39.5 events/h] vs 13.6 events/h [IQR, 5.5-33.6 events/h]; P < .001) and increased TST <90 (median, 1.8% sleep time [IQR, 0.10%-12.8% sleep time] vs 1.4% sleep time [IQR, 0.10%-10.8% sleep time]; P = .02). After overlap propensity score-weighted logistic regression, no SDB measures were associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Median TST <90 was associated with the WHO-designated COVID-19 ordinal clinical outcome scale (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74; P = .005). Time-to-event analyses showed sleep-related hypoxia associated with a 31% higher rate of hospitalization and mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.57; P = .005). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, SDB and sleep-related hypoxia were not associated with increased SARS-CoV-2 positivity; however, once patients were infected with SARS-CoV-2, sleep-related hypoxia was an associated risk factor for detrimental COVID-19 outcomes.

Upper Airway Stimulation vs Positive Airway Pressure Impact on BP and Sleepiness Symptoms in OSA.

BACKGROUND: Positive airway pressure (PAP) and upper airway stimulation (UAS) are approved OSA treatment options. Although the effect of PAP on improvement in BP and daytime sleepiness (defined according to the Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS]) has been established, the impact of UAS on BP remains unclear. This study hypothesized that PAP and UAS will confer improvements in BP and daytime sleepiness. METHODS: Clinic-based BP and ESS scores were compared between 517 patients with OSA (apnea-hypopnea index, 15-65) and BMI ≤ 35 kg/m2 initiating PAP therapy (2010-2014) at the Cleveland Clinic and 320 patients with UAS implantation (2015-2017) via an international registry with 2- to 6-month follow-up. Mixed effect models were used to compare outcomes in 201 patients in each arm following propensity matching. RESULTS: PAP showed greater improvement in diastolic BP (mean difference of change between groups, 3.7 mm Hg; P < .001) and mean arterial pressure (mean difference of change between groups, 2.8 mm Hg; P = .008) compared with UAS. UAS showed greater improvement in ESS scores vs PAP (mean difference of change between PAP and UAS groups, -0.8; P = .046). UAS therapy usage was 6.2 h/week greater than PAP-treated patients (95% CI, 3.3-9.0). Results were consistent following adjustment for therapy adherence. CONCLUSIONS: PAP showed greater improvement in BP, potentially reflecting an enhanced ability of PAP to exert beneficial mechanical intrathoracic cardiac and vascular influences. BP measurement error in the UAS group may also have accounted for findings. Greater improvement in sleepiness symptoms was noted with UAS compared with PAP.