Did COVID-19 impact Positive Airway Pressure adherence in 2020? A cross-sectional study of 8477 patients with sleep apnea.

BACKGROUND: Whether the COVID-19 pandemic impacts Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) adherence over the long-term is unknown and only preliminary short-term data have been reported. METHODS: With the aim of describing the impact of the first and second waves of COVID-19 on PAP adherence during 2020 in France, we designed a cross-sectional study of Sleep-Apnea (SA)-patients under PAP telemonitoring. To examine PAP adherence in adult SA patients, we assessed de-identified data from a non-profit healthcare provider database during the period January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. Included patients met the following criteria: (i) PAP-treated for at least 4 months before January 1, 2019 and with continuous PAP during both 2019 and 2020; (ii) ≥ 360 daily PAP telemonitored data per year. For PAP adherence, data were collected using the PAP-software. RESULTS: 8477/10482 patients were finally included in the analysis [72.4% male, median age 70 years (IQ25-75: 61-77], 25.6% < 62 years old, initial Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) of 41 (31-59)/h. Median PAP adherence was 7.21 (6.12-8.10) h/day in 2020 versus 7.12 (6.05-8.02) h/day in 2019, p < 0.001. The median difference in PAP adherence between the first 2020 lockdown and the corresponding 2019 weeks was 9.75 (CI95% 8.75-10.75) min/day, p < 0.001. The median difference in PAP adherence between the second 2020 lockdown and the corresponding 2019 weeks was 5.00 (CI95% 4.00-6.00) min/day, p < 0.001. If we consider the minimal clinically important difference of 30 min for PAP adherence, 30.4% and 26% of the patients increased their PAP adherence by at least 30 min during the first and second lockdowns respectively; 17.6% and 19.3% of the patients lowered their PAP adherence by at least 30 min in the first and second lockdowns, respectively. CONCLUSION: During the first and second lockdowns, the COVID-19 pandemic had a clinically irrelevant effect on PAP adherence for the study population. Future studies are needed to describe COVID-19 pandemic impact on PAP adherence not only for long-term PAP-treated SA patients but also for incident cases. Trial registration The COVADENE study was registered on March 1st, 2021 on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04775966).

Mask side-effects in long-term CPAP-patients impact adherence and sleepiness: the InterfaceVent real-life study.

BACKGROUND: For some patients, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) remains an uncomfortable therapy despite the constant development of technological innovations. To date, no real life study has investigated the relationship between mask related side-effects (MRSEs) and CPAP-non-adherence (defined as < 4 h/day) or residual-excessive-sleepiness (RES, Epworth-Sleepiness-Scale (ESS) score ≥ 11) in the long-term. METHODS: The InterfaceVent-CPAP study is a prospective real-life cross-sectional study conducted in an apneic adult cohort undergoing at least 3 months of CPAP with unrestricted mask-access (34 different masks). MRSEs were evaluated using visual-analogue-scales, CPAP-data using CPAP-software, sleepiness using ESS. RESULTS: 1484 patients were included in the analysis (72.2% male, median age 67 years (IQ25-75: 60-74), initial Apnea-Hypopnea-Index (AHI) of 39 (31-56)/h, residual AHIflow was 1.9 (0.9-4) events/h), CPAP-treatment lasted 4.4 (2.0-9.7) years, CPAP-usage was 6.8 (5.5-7.8) h/day, the prevalence of CPAP-non-adherence was 8.6%, and the prevalence of RES was 16.17%. Leak-related side-effects were the most prevalent side-effects (patient-reported leaks concerned 75.4% of responders and had no correlation with CPAP-reported-leaks). Multivariable logistic regression analyses evaluating explanatory-variable (demographic data, device/mask data and MRSEs) effects on variables-of-interest (CPAP-non-adherence and RES), indicated for patient-MRSEs significant associations between: (i) CPAP-non-adherence and dry-mouth (p = 0.004); (ii) RES and patient-reported leaks (p = 0.007), noisy mask (p < 0.001), dry nose (p < 0.001) and harness pain (p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: In long-term CPAP-treated patients, leak-related side-effects remain the most prevalent side-effects, but patient-reported leaks cannot be predicted by CPAP-reported-leaks. Patient-MRSEs can be independently associated with CPAP-non-adherence and RES, thus implying a complementary role for MRSE questionnaires alongside CPAP-device-reported-data for patient monitoring. Trial registration InterfaceVent is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03013283).

Apnoea-hypopnoea indices determined via continuous positive airway pressure (AHI-CPAPflow) versus those determined by polysomnography (AHI-PSGgold): a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To date, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) remains the cornerstone of obstructive sleep apnoea treatment. CPAP data describing residual sleep-disordered breathing events (ie, the CPAP-measured apnoea-hypopnoea indices (AHI-CPAPflow)) is difficult to interpret because it is an entirely different metric than the polysomnography (PSG) measured AHI gold standard (AHI-PSGgold). Moreover, manufacturer definitions for apnoea and hypopnoea are not only different from those recommended for PSG scoring, but also different between manufacturers. In the context of CPAP initiation and widespread telemedicine at home to facilitate sleep apnoea care, there is a need for concrete evidence that AHI-CPAPflow can be used as a surrogate for AHI-PSGgold. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: No published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) has compared the accuracy of AHI-CPAPflow against AHI-PSGgold and the primary objective of this study is therefore to do so using published data. The secondary objectives are to similarly evaluate other sleep disordered breathing indices and to perform subgroup analyses focusing on the inclusion/exclusion of central apnoea patients, body mass index levels, CPAP device brands, pressure titration modes, use of a predetermined and fixed pressure level or not, and the impact of a 4% PSG desaturation criteria versus 3% PSG on accuracy. The Preferred Reporting Items for SRMA protocols statement guided study design. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies of adult patients (≥18 years old) treated by a CPAP device will be included. The CPAP intervention and PSG comparator must be performed synchronously. PSGs must be scored manually and follow the American Academy of Sleep Medicine guidelines (2007 AASM criteria or more recent). To assess the risk of bias in each study, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol received ethics committee approval on 16 July 2020 (IRB_MTP_2020_07_2020000404) and results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO/TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: CRD42020159914/NCT04526366; Pre-results.