Sleep characteristics in health workers exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The development of sleep disorders, and specifically insomnia, has been linked to the exposure to different stressors. In this line, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has caused a huge impact on our environment, and has exposed healthcare workers to an unprecedented threat. In this study, we try to assess sleep quality and the development of sleep disorders in health personnel directly dedicated to the care of COVID-19 patients at the height of the pandemic, compared to the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymized, self-reported questionnaire survey was carried out at the "12 de Octubre" Hospital, in Madrid, Spain, during the outbreak of COVID-19, from March 1st to April 30th 2020. We compared two groups, healthcare workers who have treated directly COVID-19 patients versus non-healthcare workers. The questionnaire included demographic data, sleep related aspects, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and 17-items Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS). RESULTS: In total 170 participants completed the questionnaire successfully, 100 healthcare workers and 70 non-healthcare workers. Self-reported insomnia, nightmares, sleepwalking, sleep terrors and PSQI>6 were more frequent in the healthcare group (p < 0,05). Shift work was associated to greater risk when performing multiple logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that, during the outbreak of COVID-19, healthcare workers on the front line developed more sleep disturbances than non-healthcare professionals, and they had worse quality of sleep. Special attention should be paid to shift workers. Concrete protection and prevention measures for particularly exposed population should be considered in pandemic situations.

Conventional Polysomnography Is Not Necessary for the Management of Most Patients with Suspected Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Noninferiority, Randomized Controlled Trial.

RATIONALE: Home respiratory polygraphy may be a simpler alternative to in-laboratory polysomnography for the management of more symptomatic patients with obstructive sleep apnea, but its effectiveness has not been evaluated across a broad clinical spectrum. OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term effectiveness (6 mo) of home respiratory polygraphy and polysomnography management protocols in patients with intermediate-to-high sleep apnea suspicion (most patients requiring a sleep study). METHODS: A multicentric, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial with two open parallel arms and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12 tertiary hospitals in Spain. Sequentially screened patients with sleep apnea suspicion were randomized to respiratory polygraphy or polysomnography protocols. Moreover, both arms received standardized therapeutic decision-making, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment or a healthy habit assessment, auto-CPAP titration (for CPAP indication), health-related quality-of-life questionnaires, 24-hour blood pressure monitoring, and polysomnography at the end of follow-up. The main outcome was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale measurement. The noninferiority criterion was -2 points on the Epworth scale. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 430 patients were randomized. The respiratory polygraphy protocol was noninferior to the polysomnography protocol based on the Epworth scale. Quality of life, blood pressure, and polysomnography were similar between protocols. Respiratory polygraphy was the most cost-effective protocol, with a lower per-patient cost of 416.7€. CONCLUSIONS: Home respiratory polygraphy management is similarly effective to polysomnography, with a substantially lower cost. Therefore, polysomnography is not necessary for most patients with suspected sleep apnea. This finding could change established clinical practice, with a clear economic benefit. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01752556).

Non-invasive ventilation in obesity hypoventilation syndrome without severe obstructive sleep apnoea.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is an effective form of treatment in patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) who have concomitant severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, there is a paucity of evidence on the efficacy of NIV in patients with OHS without severe OSA. We performed a multicentre randomised clinical trial to determine the comparative efficacy of NIV versus lifestyle modification (control group) using daytime arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) as the main outcome measure. METHODS: Between May 2009 and December 2014 we sequentially screened patients with OHS without severe OSA. Participants were randomised to NIV versus lifestyle modification and were followed for 2 months. Arterial blood gas parameters, clinical symptoms, health-related quality of life assessments, polysomnography, spirometry, 6-min walk distance test, blood pressure measurements and healthcare resource utilisation were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were screened of whom 58 were excluded. Severe OSA was present in 221 and the remaining 86 patients without severe OSA were randomised. NIV led to a significantly larger improvement in PaCO2 of -6 (95% CI -7.7 to -4.2) mm Hg versus -2.8 (95% CI -4.3 to -1.3) mm Hg, (p<0.001) and serum bicarbonate of -3.4 (95% CI -4.5 to -2.3) versus -1 (95% CI -1.7 to -0.2 95% CI)  mmol/L (p<0.001). PaCO2 change adjusted for NIV compliance did not further improve the inter-group statistical significance. Sleepiness, some health-related quality of life assessments and polysomnographic parameters improved significantly more with NIV than with lifestyle modification. Additionally, there was a tendency towards lower healthcare resource utilisation in the NIV group. CONCLUSIONS: NIV is more effective than lifestyle modification in improving daytime PaCO2, sleepiness and polysomnographic parameters. Long-term prospective studies are necessary to determine whether NIV reduces healthcare resource utilisation, cardiovascular events and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01405976; results.