Background: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is typically recommended as first line therapy for obstructive sleep apnea, but the adherence rate of CPAP is problematic. This study's objective was to systematically review the literature relating to CPAP as first line therapy for OSA and compare it to surgical literature on the same topic. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, examining Medline-Ovid, Embase, and Pubmed databases. The primary search objective was to identify all papers reporting the results of (1) randomized clinical trials (RCT) of CPAP for the treatment of adults with OSA; and (2) both randomized and non-randomized clinical trials and case series on the surgical treatment of OSA in adults. A PhD-level biostatistician first screened papers, and then those that met study criteria were retrieved and analyzed using standardized forms for each author. The primary outcomes were adherence rates of CPAP. Results: A total of 82 controlled clinical trials for CPAP and 69 controlled and non-controlled surgery trials were identified for analysis. Variation in CPAP use within reported RCT trials were identified, and the majority of patients in the studies would eventually be considered non-adherent to CPAP. Conclusions: When considering the numerous patient-related factors that come into play when CPAP is prescribed, the concept of CPAP as gold-standard therapy for OSA should be reconsidered. In many cases surgery can provide a better overall outcome. This study's results suggest that certain patients with OSA may be managed more effectively with surgery than CPAP, without confounding issues of treatment adherence.

Reconsidering first-line treatment for obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review of the literature

VICINI, Claudio
Secondo
;
2016

Abstract

Background: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is typically recommended as first line therapy for obstructive sleep apnea, but the adherence rate of CPAP is problematic. This study's objective was to systematically review the literature relating to CPAP as first line therapy for OSA and compare it to surgical literature on the same topic. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, examining Medline-Ovid, Embase, and Pubmed databases. The primary search objective was to identify all papers reporting the results of (1) randomized clinical trials (RCT) of CPAP for the treatment of adults with OSA; and (2) both randomized and non-randomized clinical trials and case series on the surgical treatment of OSA in adults. A PhD-level biostatistician first screened papers, and then those that met study criteria were retrieved and analyzed using standardized forms for each author. The primary outcomes were adherence rates of CPAP. Results: A total of 82 controlled clinical trials for CPAP and 69 controlled and non-controlled surgery trials were identified for analysis. Variation in CPAP use within reported RCT trials were identified, and the majority of patients in the studies would eventually be considered non-adherent to CPAP. Conclusions: When considering the numerous patient-related factors that come into play when CPAP is prescribed, the concept of CPAP as gold-standard therapy for OSA should be reconsidered. In many cases surgery can provide a better overall outcome. This study's results suggest that certain patients with OSA may be managed more effectively with surgery than CPAP, without confounding issues of treatment adherence.
Rotenberg, Brian W.; Vicini, Claudio; Pang, Edward B.; Pang, Kenny P.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
40463_2016_Article_136.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: editoriale
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 749.14 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
749.14 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2374049
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 17
  • Scopus 58
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 48
social impact