Atul Malhotra1, Maureen E Crocker2, Leslee Willes3, Colleen Kelly4, Sue Lynch2, Adam V Benjafield2. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA. Electronic address: amalhotra@ucsd.edu. 2. ResMed Science Center, ResMed Corp, San Diego, CA. 3. Willes Consulting Group, Encinitas, CA. 4. Kelly Statistical Consulting, San Diego, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep apnea has major neurocognitive and cardiovascular and metabolic risks. Treatment of sleep apnea is suboptimal because of variable adherence to existing therapies. METHODS: This trial compared positive airway pressure adherence among patients who were provided active patient engagement (APE) technology vs those who received usual care monitoring (UCM). The primary outcome was expressed by using the US Medicare definition of adherence. Adherence data from two cloud-based databases (AirView and myAir) were analyzed for patients with sleep apnea. Data were included if a patient's activation date in the APE tool was within 7 days of the therapy start date in the UCM database during a defined time window. Data were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio (APE:UCM) based on baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 128,037 patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were typical of a sleep clinic cohort. APE was associated with more patients achieving adherence criteria (87.3%) compared with UCM patients (70.4%; P < .0001 for the difference). Average therapy usage was 5.9 h per night in the APE group vs 4.9 h per night in the matched UCM patients (P < .0001). Patients with sleep apnea "struggling" with therapy adherence had a 17.6% absolute improvement in adherence using APE compared with UCM. CONCLUSIONS: Robust therapy adherence rates can be achieved by adding modern technology to usual care. Adopting advances in technology in care management may allow clinicians to more effectively and efficiently treat patients who have sleep apnea. Rigorous randomized controlled trials may be required before making strong clinical recommendations.
BACKGROUND:Sleep apnea has major neurocognitive and cardiovascular and metabolic risks. Treatment of sleep apnea is suboptimal because of variable adherence to existing therapies. METHODS: This trial compared positive airway pressure adherence among patients who were provided active patient engagement (APE) technology vs those who received usual care monitoring (UCM). The primary outcome was expressed by using the US Medicare definition of adherence. Adherence data from two cloud-based databases (AirView and myAir) were analyzed for patients with sleep apnea. Data were included if a patient's activation date in the APE tool was within 7 days of the therapy start date in the UCM database during a defined time window. Data were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio (APE:UCM) based on baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 128,037 patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were typical of a sleep clinic cohort. APE was associated with more patients achieving adherence criteria (87.3%) compared with UCM patients (70.4%; P < .0001 for the difference). Average therapy usage was 5.9 h per night in the APE group vs 4.9 h per night in the matched UCM patients (P < .0001). Patients with sleep apnea "struggling" with therapy adherence had a 17.6% absolute improvement in adherence using APE compared with UCM. CONCLUSIONS: Robust therapy adherence rates can be achieved by adding modern technology to usual care. Adopting advances in technology in care management may allow clinicians to more effectively and efficiently treat patients who have sleep apnea. Rigorous randomized controlled trials may be required before making strong clinical recommendations.
Authors: Richard J Schwab; Safwan M Badr; Lawrence J Epstein; Peter C Gay; David Gozal; Malcolm Kohler; Patrick Lévy; Atul Malhotra; Barbara A Phillips; Ilene M Rosen; Kingman P Strohl; Patrick J Strollo; Edward M Weaver; Terri E Weaver Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ho-Sheng Lin; Giancarlo Zuliani; Esmael H Amjad; Abhishek S Prasad; M Safwan Badr; Chuan-Ju G Pan; James A Rowley Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Yüksel Peker; Helena Glantz; Christine Eulenburg; Karl Wegscheider; Johan Herlitz; Erik Thunström Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sutapa Mukherjee; Sanjay R Patel; Stefanos N Kales; Najib T Ayas; Kingman P Strohl; David Gozal; Atul Malhotra Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sydney B Montesi; Jessie P Bakker; Mary Macdonald; Lauren Hueser; Stephen Pittman; David P White; Atul Malhotra Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Alec B Platt; Samuel T Kuna; Samuel H Field; Zhen Chen; Rajesh Gupta; Dominic F Roche; Jason D Christie; David A Asch Journal: Chest Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Adam V Benjafield; Najib T Ayas; Peter R Eastwood; Raphael Heinzer; Mary S M Ip; Mary J Morrell; Carlos M Nunez; Sanjay R Patel; Thomas Penzel; Jean-Louis Pépin; Paul E Peppard; Sanjeev Sinha; Sergio Tufik; Kate Valentine; Atul Malhotra Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Eric J Kezirian; Michael Simmons; Richard J Schwab; Peter Cistulli; Kasey K Li; Edward M Weaver; Andrew N Goldberg; Atul Malhotra Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Peter A Cistulli; Jeff Armitstead; Jean-Louis Pepin; Holger Woehrle; Carlos M Nunez; Adam Benjafield; Atul Malhotra Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Paula K Schweitzer; Kingman P Strohl; Geert Mayer; Russell Rosenberg; Patricia Chandler; Michelle Baladi; Lawrence Lee; Atul Malhotra Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.062