No abstract

No abstract

Background: Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA). Methods: Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence-based review (EBR), or evidencebased review with recommendations (EBR-R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results: The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA-associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated. Conclusion:This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence-based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.

Rationale: More than a million polysomnograms (PSGs) are performed annually in the United States to diagnose obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Third-party payers now advocate a home sleep test (HST), rather than an in-laboratory PSG, as the diagnostic study for OSA regardless of clinical probability, but the economic benefit of this approach is not known. Objectives:We determined the diagnostic performance of OSA prediction tools including the newly developed OSUNet, based on an artificial neural network, and performed a cost-minimization analysis when the prediction tools are used to identify patients who should undergo HST. Methods:The OSUNet was trained to predict the presence of OSA in a derivation group of patients who underwent an in-laboratory PSG (n = 383). Validation group 1 consisted of in-laboratory PSG patients (n = 149). The network was trained further in 33 patients who underwent HST and then was validated in a separate group of 100 HST patients (validation group 2). Likelihood ratios (LRs) were compared with two previously published prediction tools. The total costs from the use of the three prediction tools and the third-party approach within a clinical algorithm were compared. Measurements and Main Results:The OSUNet had a higher 1LR in all groups compared with the STOP-BANG and the modified neck circumference (MNC) prediction tools. The 1LRs for STOP-BANG, MNC, and OSUNet in validation group 1 were 1.1 (1.0-1.2), 1.3 (1.1-1.5), and 2.1 (1.4-3.1); and in validation group 2 they were 1.4 (1.1-1.7), 1.7 (1.3-2.2), and 3.4 (1.8-6.1), respectively. With an OSA prevalence less than 52%, the use of all three clinical prediction tools resulted in cost savings compared with the third-party approach. Conclusions:The routine requirement of an HST to diagnose OSA regardless of clinical probability is more costly compared with the use of OSA clinical prediction tools that identify patients who should undergo this procedure when OSA is expected to be present in less than half of the population. With OSA prevalence less than 40%, the OSUNet offers the greatest savings, which are substantial when the number of sleep studies done annually is considered.

No abstract