| Literature DB >> 26064041 |
Yeying Wang1, Alan F Geater2, Yanling Chai3, Jiahong Luo4, Xiaoqun Niu3, Bing Hai3, Jingting Qin3, Yongxia Li3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify patterns of adherence to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) use in the first 3 months of therapy among newly diagnosed adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAS) and their predictors. To develop pretherapy and in-therapy scores to predict adherence pattern.Entities:
Keywords: K-means cluster analysis; OSAS; adherence; bootstrap analysis; nCPAP; predictive model
Year: 2015 PMID: 26064041 PMCID: PMC4455858 DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S83105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence ISSN: 1177-889X Impact factor: 2.711
Figure 1Distributions of adherence to nCPAP among newly diagnosed OSAS patients over time.
Notes: (A) Distribution of 76 individuals’ adherence by three patterns of adherence; (B) means and 95% CI of each pattern of adherence. Each subject is represented by a single line in (A). Solid line: good adherence pattern; dashed line: moderate adherence pattern; dotted line: poor adherence pattern.
Abbreviations: nCPAP, nasal continuous positive airway pressure; OSAS, obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome; CI, confidence interval.
Evaluation parameter of bss/tss from K-means cluster analysis and the number of subjects in the smallest cluster from K-means cluster analysis
| Number of clusters | bss/tss (%) | Number of patients in the smallest cluster |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 92.1 | 6 |
| 4 | 90.1 | 8 |
| 3 | 86.3 | 14 |
Abbreviations: bss, between-cluster sum of squares; tss, total sum of squares.
Baseline and 3rd week information and the average nightly adherence during the study according to the three patterns of adherence
| Items | Poor, n=14 | Moderate, n=19 | Good, n=43 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yr | 53.1 (16.6)a | 48.2 (14.3)a | 46.5 (13.9)a | 0.343 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 5 (8.6)a | 15 (25.9)b | 38 (65.5)b | <0.001 |
| Female | 9 (50.0) | 4 (22.2) | 5 (22.8) | |
| BMI, | 24.9 (3.3)a | 27.1 (3.1)a,b | 27.6 (3.3)b | 0.032 |
| WHR | 0.9 (0.1)a | 1.0 (0.1)b | 1.0 (0.1)b | 0.039 |
| AHI, | 30 (18, 48)a | 49 (32, 70)b | 53 (33, 70)b | 0.009 |
| SaOR | 0.2 (0.1, 0.3)a | 0.2 (0.1, 0.3)a | 0.2 (0.1, 0.3)a | 0.818 |
| ESS, score | ||||
| Baseline | 10.6 (4.8)a | 12.3 (5.0)a | 13.5 (4.8)a | 0.167 |
| 3rd week | 6.2 (2)a | 6.2 (2.7)a | 5.6 (2.4)a | 0.538 |
| Change | −4.4 (4.2)a | −6.1 (4.6)a,b | −7.9 (4.4)b | 0.034 |
| Paired test | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| FSS, score | ||||
| Baseline | 45.5 (12.2)a | 47.7 (12.7)a | 42.6 (11.6)a | 0.261 |
| 3rd week | 47.4 (11.7)a | 43.2 (12.2)a | 33.0 (10.9)b | 0.001 |
| Change | 1.9 (3.4)a | −4.5 (3.3)b | −9.6 (3.2)c | <0.001 |
| Paired test | 0.060 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| SDS, score | ||||
| Baseline | 43.2 (3.1)a | 39.2 (4.5)b | 34.7 (4.0)c | <0.001 |
| 3rd week | 43.2 (2.9)a | 37.1 (4.7)b | 31.3 (4.3)c | <0.001 |
| Change | 0 (1.6)a | −2.1 (1.5)b | −3.4 (1.6)c | <0.001 |
| Paired test | 1 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| PSQI, score | ||||
| Baseline | 10 (6, 11)a | 5 (3, 6)b | 4 (3, 5)b | <0.001 |
| 3rd week | 10 (6, 11)a | 5 (4, 7)b | 4 (3, 5)c | <0.001 |
| Change | 0 (−1, 1)a,b | 1 (0, 1)a | 0 (−1, 0)b | 0.003 |
| Paired test | 0.746 | 0.037 | 0.004 | |
| First 3-week adherence, | 4.5 (0.9)a | 5.5 (0.5)b | 5.8 (0.5)c | <0.001 |
| 4–12 weeks’ adherence, | 1.6 (1.1)a | 5.2 (0.7)b | 7.2 (0.3)c | <0.001 |
| Overall adherence, | 2.3 (0.9)a | 5.3 (0.6)b | 6.8 (0.3)c | <0.001 |
Notes: In each row, those means, medians, or proportions that share a common superscript (a–c) do not differ significantly. Those means, medians, or proportions that do not share a common superscript differ significantly from one another (P<0.05, t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, chi-square test). Given an example of BMI, poor pattern did not differ significantly from moderate pattern, but differed significantly from good pattern; moderate pattern did not differ significantly from both poor and good patterns.
Mean (SD) with ANOVA F-test;
frequency (%) with Fisher’s exact test;
median (IQR) with Kruskal–Wallis test;
paired t-test (baseline vs 3rd week);
Wilcoxon paired signed rank test (baseline vs 3rd week). Change = 3rd week score – baseline score: negative value means improved.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; WHR, waist–hip ratio; AHI, apnea/hypopnea index; ANOVA, analysis of variance; IQR, interquartile range; SaOR, (average degree of blood oxygen saturation – lowest degree of blood oxygen saturation)/average degree of blood oxygen saturation; ESS, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (0–24, higher score indicated sleepier); FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale (9–63, higher score indicated more fatigue); SDS, Zung’s Self-Rating Depression Scale (20–80, higher score indicated more depressed); PSQI, The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (0–21, higher score indicated lower sleep quality).
Cumulative logit regression results of baseline predictors of 12-week adherence pattern
| Items | Coefficient | Ordinal OR (95% CI) | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESS, score | −0.271 | 0.763 (0.651, 0.893) | −3 |
| SDS, score | 0.474 | 1.461 (1.238, 1.724) | 5 |
| PSQI, score | 0.816 | 2.261 (1.427, 3.584) | 9 |
Notes: Adherence order: good < moderate < poor. Independent variables of baseline initially included in the model but subsequently removed as nonsignificant: age, sex, BMI, WHR, AHI, FSS score.
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% of confidence interval; ESS, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (0–24, higher score indicates sleepier); SDS, Zung’s Self-Rating Depression Scale (20–80, higher score indicates more depressed); PSQI, The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (0–21, higher score indicates lower sleep quality); BMI, body mass index; WHR, waist -hip ratio; AHI, apnea/hypopnea index; FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale (9–63, higher score indicated more fatigue).
Cumulative logit regression results of first-3-week therapy predictors of 12-week adherence pattern
| Items | Coefficient | Ordinal OR (95% CI) | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESS, score | −0.591 | 0.554 (0.331, 0.926) | −4 |
| ESS change, score | −0.779 | 0.459 (0.243, 0.868) | −5 |
| PSQI, score | 0.935 | 2.548 (1.454, 4.465) | 6 |
| PSQI change, score | 1.077 | 2.937 (1.273, 6.773) | 7 |
| FSS change, score | 1.268 | 3.556 (1.788, 7.070) | 8 |
Notes: Dependent variable order: good adherence < moderate adherence < poor adherence. Independent variables initially included in the model, but subsequently removed as nonsignificant: baseline information – age, sex, BMI, WHR, AHI, FSS score, SDS score; the change in SDS score; adherence in first therapy phase. Change = 3rd week score – baseline score: negative value means improved.
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% of confidence interval; ESS, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (0–24, higher score indicates sleepier); PSQI, The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (0–21, higher score indicates lower sleep quality); FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale (7–63, higher score indicates more fatigue); BMI, body mass index; WHR, waist-hip ratio; AHI, apnea/hypopnea index; FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale (9–63, higher score indicated more fatigue); SDS, Zung’s self-rating Depression scale (20–80, higher score indicated more depressed).
Figure 2Distributions of baseline and first 3 weeks predictive score among three adherence patterns.
Notes: Each score is represented by a single dot in the figure. Reference line marks the selected cut-off point.
Figure 3ROC curves of baseline and first-3-weeks predictive scores. Each symbol represents a different score.
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver operating characteristics.
Bootstrap evaluation of predictive ability of baseline and first-3-week predictive scores using the selected cut-off pointsa (mean and 95% bootstrap confidence interval)
| Items | Resample (n=500)
| |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline score cut-off point: <221/≥221 | 3-week score cut-off point: <10/≥10 | |
| PPV | 0.824 (0.815, 0.832) | 0.936 (0.930, 0.942) |
| NPV | 1 (1, 1) | 1 (1, 1) |
Notes:
Cut-off points corresponding to minimum false positive proportion consistent with 100% true positive proportion.
Abbreviations: PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.