Usefulness of sleep events detection using a wrist worn peripheral arterial tone signal device (WatchPAT™) in a population at low risk of obstructive sleep apnea.

Due to the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), it is recommended to use in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) or a home sleep apnea test (HSAT) in uncomplicated adult subjects at high risk of OSA. The aims of the present study were to compare a HSAT device, a wrist worn peripheral arterial tone signal device (WatchPAT™-200 [WP]) with PSG and respiratory polygraphy (RP) in a low-risk population of OSA. A total of 47 adult subjects at low risk of OSA were simultaneously examined with the three different approaches in a single night. The sleep studies were scored independently and in a blinded fashion, then the results and the parameters (Respiratory Disturbance Index, apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] and oxygen desaturation index of 3%) were compared with several statistical analyses. The agreement between the sleep tools and correlation for the assessed parameters were analysed and compared with Bland and Altman plots and Pearson's coefficient (WP versus PSG, r = 0.86). For the severity of OSA ranked according to PSG, the Cohen's k was 0.60 and 0.82 for WP and RP, respectively. Specificity was higher for RP compared to WP for identifying the presence of OSA (AHIPSG cut-off ≥5 events/hr: 0.85 versus 0.73), while was quite similar in identifying patients who were more likely to be treated (AHIPSG cut-off ≥15 events/hr: 0.94 versus 0.96). Assessing the costs and the simplicity of the examination, the results of our present study demonstrate the usefulness of WP compared to PSG, especially in screening and follow-up for the ability to exclude subjects from treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (AHI <15 events/hr) in a population with a low pre-test risk of moderate-to-severe OSA.

Comparison between clinical trials and real-world evidence studies on biologics for severe asthma.

In recent years, the more widespread availability of biological drugs with specific mechanisms of action has led to significant breakthroughs in the management of severe asthma. Over time, numerous randomised clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these biologics and define the eligibility criteria of patients suitable for various therapeutic options. These studies were conducted under controlled conditions not always applicable to real life. For this and other reasons, real-world evidence and pragmatic studies are required to provide useful information on the effectiveness of biological drugs and their safety, even in the long term. Because differences in outcomes have sometimes emerged between clinical trials and real-life studies, it is important to clarify the causes of these discrepancies and define the significance of the results of studies conducted in the course of daily clinical practice. Thus, a scientific debate is ongoing, and no consensus has been reached. The purpose of this narrative review is to analyse the differences between randomised trials and real-world evidence studies, focusing on their roles in guiding clinicians among different therapeutic options and understanding the reasons for the large discrepancies often found in the results obtained.