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.

Combination pharmacological therapy targeting multiple mechanisms of sleep apnoea: a randomised controlled cross-over trial.

RATIONALE: Acetazolamide and atomoxetine-plus-oxybutynin ('AtoOxy') can improve obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) by stabilising ventilatory control and improving dilator muscle responsiveness respectively. Given the different pathophysiological mechanisms targeted by each intervention, we tested whether AtoOxy-plus-acetazolamide would be more efficacious than AtoOxy alone. METHODS: In a multicentre randomised crossover trial, 19 patients with moderate-to-severe OSA received AtoOxy (80/5 mg), acetazolamide (500 mg), combined AtoOxy-plus-acetazolamide or placebo at bedtime for three nights (half doses on first night) with a 4-day washout between conditions. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and night 3 of each treatment period. Mixed model analysis compared the reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) from baseline between AtoOxy-plus-acetazolamide and AtoOxy (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included hypoxic burden and arousal index. RESULTS: Although AtoOxy lowered AHI by 49 (33, 62)%baseline (estimate (95% CI)) vs placebo, and acetazolamide lowered AHI by+34 (14, 50)%baseline vs placebo, AtoOxy-plus-acetazolamide was not superior to AtoOxy alone (difference: -2 (-18, 11)%baseline, primary outcome p=0.8). Likewise, the hypoxic burden was lowered with AtoOxy (+58 (37, 71)%baseline) and acetazolamide (+37 (5, 58)%baseline), but no added benefit versus AtoOxy occurred when combined (difference: -13 (-5, 39)%baseline). Arousal index was also modestly reduced with each intervention (11%baseline-16%baseline). Mechanistic analyses revealed that similar traits (ie, higher baseline compensation, lower loop gain) were associated with both AtoOxy and acetazolamide efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: While AtoOxy halved AHI, and acetazolamide lowered AHI by a third, the combination of these leading experimental interventions provided no greater efficacy than AtoOxy alone. Failure of acetazolamide to further increase efficacy suggests overlapping physiological mechanisms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03892772.

Is snoozing losing? Why intermittent morning alarms are used and how they affect sleep, cognition, cortisol, and mood.

Pressing the snooze button is a common way to start the day, but little is known about this behaviour. Through two studies we determined predictors and effects of snoozing. In Study 1 (n = 1732) respondents described their waking habits, confirming that snoozing is widespread, especially in younger individuals and later chronotypes. Morning drowsiness and shorter sleep were also more common for those who snooze. Study 2 was a within-subjects laboratory study (with polysomnography) on habitual snoozers (n = 31), showing that 30 min of snoozing improved or did not affect performance on cognitive tests directly upon rising compared to an abrupt awakening. Bayes factors indicate varying strengths of this evidence. Snoozing resulted in about 6 min of lost sleep, while preventing awakenings from slow-wave sleep (N3). There were no clear effects of snoozing on the cortisol awakening response, morning sleepiness, mood, or overnight sleep architecture. A brief snooze period may thus help alleviate sleep inertia, without substantially disturbing sleep, for late chronotypes and those with morning drowsiness.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Effects of acetazolamide on control of breathing in sleep apnea patients: Mechanistic insights using meta-analyses and physiological model simulations.

Obstructive and central sleep apnea affects ~1 billion people globally and may lead to serious cardiovascular and neurocognitive consequences, but treatment options are limited. High loop gain (ventilatory instability) is a major pathophysiological mechanism underlying both types of sleep apnea and can be lowered pharmacologically with acetazolamide, thereby improving sleep apnea severity. However, individual responses vary and are strongly correlated with the loop gain reduction achieved by acetazolamide. To aid with patient selection for long-term trials and clinical care, our goal was to understand better the factors that determine the change in loop gain following acetazolamide in human subjects with sleep apnea. Thus, we (i) performed several meta-analyses to clarify how acetazolamide affects ventilatory control and loop gain (including its primary components controller/plant gain), and based on these results, we (ii) performed physiological model simulations to assess how different baseline conditions affect the change in loop gain. Our results suggest that (i) acetazolamide primarily causes a left shift of the chemosensitivity line thus lowering plant gain without substantially affecting controller gain; and (ii) higher controller gain, higher paCO2 at eupneic ventilation, and lower CO2 production at baseline result in a more pronounced loop gain reduction with acetazolamide. In summary, the combination of mechanistic meta-analyses with model simulations provides a unified framework of acetazolamide's effects on ventilatory control and revealed physiological predictors of response, which are consistent with empirical observations of acetazolamide's effects in different sleep apnea subgroups. Prospective studies are needed to validate these predictors and assess their value for patient selection.

Frequency of flow limitation using airflow shape.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The presence of flow limitation during sleep is associated with adverse health consequences independent of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) severity (apnea-hypopnea index, AHI), but remains extremely challenging to quantify. Here we present a unique library and an accompanying automated method that we apply to investigate flow limitation during sleep. METHODS: A library of 117,871 breaths (N = 40 participants) were visually classified (certain flow limitation, possible flow limitation, normal) using airflow shape and physiological signals (ventilatory drive per intra-esophageal diaphragm EMG). An ordinal regression model was developed to quantify flow limitation certainty using flow-shape features (e.g. flattening, scooping); breath-by-breath agreement (Cohen's ƙ); and overnight flow limitation frequency (R2, %breaths in certain or possible categories during sleep) were compared against visual scoring. Subsequent application examined flow limitation frequency during arousals and stable breathing, and associations with ventilatory drive. RESULTS: The model (23 features) assessed flow limitation with good agreement (breath-by-breath ƙ = 0.572, p < 0.001) and minimal error (overnight flow limitation frequency R2 = 0.86, error = 7.2%). Flow limitation frequency was largely independent of AHI (R2 = 0.16) and varied widely within individuals with OSA (74[32-95]%breaths, mean[range], AHI > 15/h, N = 22). Flow limitation was unexpectedly frequent but variable during arousals (40[5-85]%breaths) and stable breathing (58[12-91]%breaths), and was associated with elevated ventilatory drive (R2 = 0.26-0.29; R2 < 0.01 AHI v. drive). CONCLUSIONS: Our method enables quantification of flow limitation frequency, a key aspect of obstructive sleep-disordered breathing that is independent of the AHI and often unavailable. Flow limitation frequency varies widely between individuals, is prevalent during arousals and stable breathing, and reveals elevated ventilatory drive. Clinical trial registration: The current observational physiology study does not qualify as a clinical trial.

Treatable cardiac disease in hospitalised COPD exacerbations.

INTRODUCTION: Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are accompanied by escalations in cardiac risk superimposed upon elevated baseline risk. Appropriate treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) could improve outcomes. However, securing these diagnoses during AECOPD is difficult, so their true prevalence remains unknown, as does the magnitude of this treatment opportunity. We aimed to determine the prevalence of severe CAD and severe HFrEF during hospitalised AECOPD using dynamic computed tomography (CT). METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 148 patients with hospitalised AECOPD was conducted. Dynamic CT was used to identify severe CAD (Agatston score ≥400) and HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and/or right ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%). RESULTS: Severe CAD was detected in 51 of 148 patients (35%), left ventricular systolic dysfunction was identified in 12 cases (8%) and right ventricular systolic dysfunction was present in 18 (12%). Clinical history and examination did not identify severe CAD in approximately one-third of cases and missed HFrEF in two-thirds of cases. Elevated troponin and brain natriuretic peptide did not differentiate subjects with severe CAD from nonsevere CAD, nor distinguish HFrEF from normal ejection fraction. Undertreatment was common. Of those with severe CAD, only 39% were prescribed an antiplatelet agent, and 53% received a statin. Of individuals with HFrEF, 50% or less received angiotensin blockers, beta blockers or antimineralocorticoids. CONCLUSION: Dynamic CT detects clinically covert CAD and HFrEF during AECOPD, identifying opportunities to improve outcomes via well-established cardiac treatments.

Interstitial lung disease and obstructive sleep apnea.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is one of the most common comorbidities in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). Growing evidence highlights the significance of sleep disturbance on health outcomes in this population. The relationships between ILD and OSA are complex and possibly bidirectional, with multiple mechanisms postulated for the pathogenic and physiologic links. This review synthesizes current evidence and hypotheses regarding different aspects of the relationships between ILD and OSA, emphasizing the interactions between epidemiology, pathogenesis, and pathophysiology.

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.

Children with down syndrome and sleep disordered breathing display impairments in ventilatory control.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of ventilatory control instability (i.e. loop gain) in children with Down syndrome and sleep disordered breathing. METHODS: Children (3-19 years) with Down syndrome and sleep disordered breathing (n = 14) were compared with typically developing children (n = 14) matched for age, sex and sleep disordered breathing severity. All children underwent overnight polysomnography. Spontaneous sighs were identified and a 180s analysis window (60s pre-sigh to 120s post-sigh) containing flow measurements and oxygen saturation were created. Loop gain, a measure of the sensitivity of the negative feedback loop that controls ventilation, was estimated by fitting a mathematical model of ventilatory control to the post-sigh ventilatory pattern. Results; Loop gain was significantly higher in children with Down syndrome compared to matched typically developing children (median loop gain [interquartile range]: 0.36 [0.33, 0.55] vs 0.32 [0.24, 0.38]; P = 0.0395). While children with Down syndrome also had significantly lower average oxygen saturation associated within each analysis window compared to typically developing children (mean ± standard deviation: 96.9 ± 1.3% vs 98.0 ± 1.0%; P = 0.0155), loop gain was not related to polysomnographic measures of hypoxia. CONCLUSIONS: Higher loop gain in children with Down syndrome and sleep disordered breathing indicates that these children have more unstable ventilatory control, compared to age, sex and sleep disordered breathing severity matched typically developing children. This may be due to an inherent impairment in ventilatory control in children with Down syndrome contributing to their increased risk of sleep disordered breathing which may inform alternative treatment options for this population.