Protocol for a pragmatic trial testing a self-directed lifestyle program targeting weight loss among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (POWER Trial).

BACKGROUND: Obesity comprises the single greatest reversible risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Despite the potential of lifestyle-based weight loss services to improve OSA severity and symptoms, these programs have limited reach. POWER is a pragmatic trial of a remote self-directed weight loss care among patients with OSA. METHODS: POWER randomizes 696 patients with obesity (BMI 30-45 kg/m2) and recent diagnosis or re-confirmation of OSA 1:1 to either a self-directed weight loss intervention or usual care. POWER tests whether such an intervention improves co-primary outcomes of weight and sleep-related quality of life at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep symptoms, global ratings of change, and cardiovascular risk scores. Finally, consistent with a hybrid type 1 approach, the trial embeds an implementation process evaluation. We will use quantitative and qualitative methods including budget impact analyses and qualitative interviews to assess barriers to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of POWER will inform population health approaches to the delivery of weight loss care. A remote self-directed program has the potential to be disseminated widely with limited health system resources and likely low-cost.

Impact of mail-based continuous positive airway pressure initiation on treatment usage and effectiveness.

PURPOSE: In-person visits with a trained therapist have been standard care for patients initiating continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). These visits provide an opportunity for hands-on training and an in-person assessment of mask fit. However, to improve access, many health systems are shifting to remote CPAP initiation with equipment mailed to patients. While there are potential benefits of a mailed approach, relative patient outcomes are unclear. Specifically, many have concerns that a lack of in-person training may contribute to reduced CPAP adherence. To inform this knowledge gap, we aimed to compare treatment usage after in-person or mailed CPAP initiation. METHODS: Our medical center shifted from in-person to mailed CPAP dispensation in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. We assembled a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who initiated CPAP in the months before (n = 433) and after (n = 186) this shift. We compared 90-day adherence between groups. RESULTS: Mean nightly PAP usage was modest in both groups (in-person 145.2, mailed 140.6 min/night). We did not detect between-group differences in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (adjusted difference - 0.2 min/night, 95% - 27.0 to + 26.5). CONCLUSIONS: Mail-based systems of CPAP initiation may be able to improve access without reducing CPAP usage. Future work should consider the impact of mailed CPAP on patient-reported outcomes and the impact of different remote setup strategies.