Limits...
Auto-titrating versus fixed continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

Ip S, D'Ambrosio C, Patel K, Obadan N, Kitsios GD, Chung M, Balk EM - Syst Rev (2012)

Bottom Line: Random effects model meta-analyses were performed for selected outcomes.No study reported on objective clinical outcomes.Statistically significant differences were found but clinical importance is unclear.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea is a relatively common disorder that can lead to lost productivity and cardiovascular disease. The form of positive airway treatment that should be offered is unclear.

Methods: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Trials registry were searched for English language randomized controlled trials comparing auto-titrating positive airway pressure (APAP) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in adults with obstructive sleep apnea (inception through 9/2010). Six researchers extracted information on study design, potential bias, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes. Data for each study were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by another. Random effects model meta-analyses were performed for selected outcomes.

Results: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. In individual studies, APAP and fixed CPAP resulted in similar changes from baseline in the apnea-hypopnea index, most other sleep study measures and quality of life. By meta-analysis, APAP improved compliance by 11 minutes per night (95% CI, 3 to 19 minutes) and reduced sleepiness as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale by 0.5 points (95% CI, 0.8 to 0.2 point reduction) compared with fixed CPAP. Fixed CPAP improved minimum oxygen saturation by 1.3% more than APAP (95% CI, 0.4 to 2.2%). Studies had relatively short follow-up and generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. No study reported on objective clinical outcomes.

Conclusions: Statistically significant differences were found but clinical importance is unclear. Because the treatment effects are similar between APAP and CPAP, the therapy of choice may depend on other factors such as patient preference, specific reasons for non-compliance and cost.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Literature selection flow.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3351715&req=5

Figure 1: Literature selection flow.

Mentions: Our literature search yielded 15,816 citations, from which 861 articles were retrieved (Figure 1). We identified 24 RCTs that compared APAP with fixed CPAP treatment in patients with OSA (Table 1; [10-33]). Three RCTs [31-33] identified in prior meta-analyses [4,34] were added after completion of our full technical report [6]. Fifteen trials used a cross-over design and nine a parallel design. Studies generally failed to report complete data about outcomes. For 17 studies, the variance of the difference in baseline and final values was not reported and had to be estimated by making an assumption about the correlation between the values. Patients who were new to positive airway pressure treatments were enrolled in 21 of 24 studies (three did not provide this information). There was a broad range of OSA severity at baseline across studies; patients' mean baseline AHI ranged from 15 to 58 events/hour. In all studies, most patients were either overweight or obese (body mass index ranged from 29.9 to 42 kg/m2). None of the studies selectively focused on patients with other comorbidities. Study sample sizes ranged from 10 to 181 patients (total 1017 across studies). Study durations ranged from three weeks to nine months, with the majority of studies lasting three months or less. Two trials were rated quality A, 12 were rated quality B and ten rated quality C. Primary methodological concerns included small sample sizes without statistical power calculations, incomplete data reporting, short follow-up durations and high dropout rates. Based primarily on the eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics of the trial, the outcomes are applicable mainly to newly diagnosed (previously untreated) OSA patients with AHI > 15 events/hour and body mass index > 30 kg/m2. Outcome-specific tables summarizing the trials and their results can be found Table 2 (compliance), Table 3 (AHI), Table 4 (ESS), Table 5 (arousal index), Table 6 (minimum O2 saturation), Table 7 (sleep efficiency), Table 8 (rapid eye movement (REM) sleep), Table 9 (stage 3 or 4 sleep) and Table 10 (quality of life and functional outcomes).


Auto-titrating versus fixed continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

Ip S, D'Ambrosio C, Patel K, Obadan N, Kitsios GD, Chung M, Balk EM - Syst Rev (2012)

Literature selection flow.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3351715&req=5

Figure 1: Literature selection flow.
Mentions: Our literature search yielded 15,816 citations, from which 861 articles were retrieved (Figure 1). We identified 24 RCTs that compared APAP with fixed CPAP treatment in patients with OSA (Table 1; [10-33]). Three RCTs [31-33] identified in prior meta-analyses [4,34] were added after completion of our full technical report [6]. Fifteen trials used a cross-over design and nine a parallel design. Studies generally failed to report complete data about outcomes. For 17 studies, the variance of the difference in baseline and final values was not reported and had to be estimated by making an assumption about the correlation between the values. Patients who were new to positive airway pressure treatments were enrolled in 21 of 24 studies (three did not provide this information). There was a broad range of OSA severity at baseline across studies; patients' mean baseline AHI ranged from 15 to 58 events/hour. In all studies, most patients were either overweight or obese (body mass index ranged from 29.9 to 42 kg/m2). None of the studies selectively focused on patients with other comorbidities. Study sample sizes ranged from 10 to 181 patients (total 1017 across studies). Study durations ranged from three weeks to nine months, with the majority of studies lasting three months or less. Two trials were rated quality A, 12 were rated quality B and ten rated quality C. Primary methodological concerns included small sample sizes without statistical power calculations, incomplete data reporting, short follow-up durations and high dropout rates. Based primarily on the eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics of the trial, the outcomes are applicable mainly to newly diagnosed (previously untreated) OSA patients with AHI > 15 events/hour and body mass index > 30 kg/m2. Outcome-specific tables summarizing the trials and their results can be found Table 2 (compliance), Table 3 (AHI), Table 4 (ESS), Table 5 (arousal index), Table 6 (minimum O2 saturation), Table 7 (sleep efficiency), Table 8 (rapid eye movement (REM) sleep), Table 9 (stage 3 or 4 sleep) and Table 10 (quality of life and functional outcomes).

Bottom Line: Random effects model meta-analyses were performed for selected outcomes.No study reported on objective clinical outcomes.Statistically significant differences were found but clinical importance is unclear.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea is a relatively common disorder that can lead to lost productivity and cardiovascular disease. The form of positive airway treatment that should be offered is unclear.

Methods: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Trials registry were searched for English language randomized controlled trials comparing auto-titrating positive airway pressure (APAP) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in adults with obstructive sleep apnea (inception through 9/2010). Six researchers extracted information on study design, potential bias, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes. Data for each study were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by another. Random effects model meta-analyses were performed for selected outcomes.

Results: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. In individual studies, APAP and fixed CPAP resulted in similar changes from baseline in the apnea-hypopnea index, most other sleep study measures and quality of life. By meta-analysis, APAP improved compliance by 11 minutes per night (95% CI, 3 to 19 minutes) and reduced sleepiness as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale by 0.5 points (95% CI, 0.8 to 0.2 point reduction) compared with fixed CPAP. Fixed CPAP improved minimum oxygen saturation by 1.3% more than APAP (95% CI, 0.4 to 2.2%). Studies had relatively short follow-up and generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. No study reported on objective clinical outcomes.

Conclusions: Statistically significant differences were found but clinical importance is unclear. Because the treatment effects are similar between APAP and CPAP, the therapy of choice may depend on other factors such as patient preference, specific reasons for non-compliance and cost.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus