M Ángeles Sánchez-Quiroga1,2, Jaime Corral2,3, Francisco J Gómez-de-Terreros2,3, Carmen Carmona-Bernal4, M Isabel Asensio-Cruz4, Marta Cabello5, M Ángeles Martínez-Martínez5, Carlos J Egea6, Estrella Ordax7, Ferran Barbe2,8, Javier Barca9, Juan F Masa2,3. 1. Virgen del Puerto Hospital, Plasencia, Spain. 2. Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. 3. San Pedro de Alcántara Hospital, Cáceres, Spain. 4. Virgen del Rocío Hospital, Seville, Spain. 5. Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital, Santander, Spain. 6. Organización Sanitaria Integrada, Bioaraba Research Institute, Araba University Hospital, Vitoria, Spain. 7. Burgos University Hospital, Burgos, Spain. 8. Arnau de Vilanova y Santa María Hospital, Lleida, Spain; and. 9. Extremadura University, Cáceres, Spain.
Abstract
Rationale: General practitioners play a passive role in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management. Simplification of the diagnosis and use of a semiautomatic algorithm for treatment can facilitate the integration of general practitioners, which has cost advantages. Objectives: To determine differences in effectiveness between primary health care area (PHA) and in-laboratory specialized management protocols during 6 months of follow-up. Methods: A multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial with two open parallel arms and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in six tertiary hospitals in Spain. Sequentially screened patients with an intermediate to high OSA probability were randomized to PHA or in-laboratory management. The PHA arm involved a portable monitor with automatic scoring and semiautomatic therapeutic decision-making. The in-laboratory arm included polysomnography and specialized therapeutic decision-making. Patients in both arms received continuous positive airway pressure treatment or sleep hygiene and dietary treatment alone. The primary outcome measure was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, blood pressure, incidence of cardiovascular events, hospital resource utilization, continuous positive airway pressure adherence, and within-trial costs.Measurements and Main Results: In total, 307 patients were randomized and 303 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Based on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the PHA protocol was noninferior to the in-laboratory protocol. Secondary outcome variables were similar between the protocols. The cost-effectiveness relationship favored the PHA arm, with a cost difference of €537.8 per patient.Conclusions: PHA management may be an alternative to in-laboratory management for patients with an intermediate to high OSA probability. Given the clear economic advantage of outpatient management, this finding could change established clinical practice.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02141165).
RCT Entities:
Rationale: General practitioners play a passive role in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management. Simplification of the diagnosis and use of a semiautomatic algorithm for treatment can facilitate the integration of general practitioners, which has cost advantages. Objectives: To determine differences in effectiveness between primary health care area (PHA) and in-laboratory specialized management protocols during 6 months of follow-up. Methods: A multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial with two open parallel arms and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in six tertiary hospitals in Spain. Sequentially screened patients with an intermediate to high OSA probability were randomized to PHA or in-laboratory management. The PHA arm involved a portable monitor with automatic scoring and semiautomatic therapeutic decision-making. The in-laboratory arm included polysomnography and specialized therapeutic decision-making. Patients in both arms received continuous positive airway pressure treatment or sleep hygiene and dietary treatment alone. The primary outcome measure was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, blood pressure, incidence of cardiovascular events, hospital resource utilization, continuous positive airway pressure adherence, and within-trial costs.Measurements and Main Results: In total, 307 patients were randomized and 303 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Based on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the PHA protocol was noninferior to the in-laboratory protocol. Secondary outcome variables were similar between the protocols. The cost-effectiveness relationship favored the PHA arm, with a cost difference of €537.8 per patient.Conclusions: PHA management may be an alternative to in-laboratory management for patients with an intermediate to high OSA probability. Given the clear economic advantage of outpatient management, this finding could change established clinical practice.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02141165).
Authors: Patricia Lloberes; Joaquín Durán-Cantolla; Miguel Ángel Martínez-García; José María Marín; Antoni Ferrer; Jaime Corral; Juan Fernando Masa; Olga Parra; Mari Luz Alonso-Álvarez; Joaquín Terán-Santos Journal: Arch Bronconeumol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ferran Barbé; Joaquín Durán-Cantolla; Manuel Sánchez-de-la-Torre; Montserrat Martínez-Alonso; Carmen Carmona; Antonia Barceló; Eusebi Chiner; Juan F Masa; Mónica Gonzalez; Jose M Marín; Francisco Garcia-Rio; Josefa Diaz de Atauri; Joaquín Terán; Mercedes Mayos; Mónica de la Peña; Carmen Monasterio; Felix del Campo; Josep M Montserrat Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Juan F Masa; Jaime Corral; Ricardo Pereira; Joaquin Duran-Cantolla; Marta Cabello; Luis Hernández-Blasco; Carmen Monasterio; Alberto Alonso; Eusebi Chiner; Manuela Rubio; Estefania Garcia-Ledesma; Laura Cacelo; Rosario Carpizo; Lirios Sacristan; Neus Salord; Miguel Carrera; José N Sancho-Chust; Cristina Embid; Francisco-José Vázquez-Polo; Miguel A Negrín; Jose M Montserrat Journal: Thorax Date: 2011-05-20 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Juan F Masa; Antonio Jiménez; Joaquín Durán; Francisco Capote; Carmen Monasterio; Mercedes Mayos; Joaquín Terán; Lourdes Hernández; Ferrán Barbé; Andrés Maimó; Manuela Rubio; José M Montserrat Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Nick A Antic; Catherine Buchan; Adrian Esterman; Michael Hensley; Matthew T Naughton; Sharn Rowland; Bernadette Williamson; Samantha Windler; Simon Eckermann; R Doug McEvoy Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Patricia Peñacoba; M Antònia Llauger; Ana M Fortuna; Xavier Flor; Gabriel Sampol; Anna Maria Pedro Pijoan; Núria Grau; Carme Santiveri; Joan Juvanteny; José Ignacio Aoiz; Joan Bayó; Patricia Lloberes; Mercè Mayos Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Lucas M Donovan; Aditi Shah; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; Ferran Barbé; Najib T Ayas; Vishesh K Kapur Journal: Chest Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Daniela V Pachito; Ângela M Bagattini; Luciano F Drager; Alan L Eckeli; Aline Rocha Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Jennifer Corrigan; Willis H Tsai; Ada Ip-Buting; Christopher Ng; Imhokhai Ogah; Peter Peller; Heather Sharpe; Cheryl Laratta; Sachin R Pendharkar Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Emerson M Wickwire; Sophia L Jobe; Sairam Parthasarathy; Jacob Collen; Vincent F Capaldi; Abree Johnson; Aparna Vadlamani; John M Levri; Steven M Scharf; Jennifer S Albrecht Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-11-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Timon M Fabius; Jeffrey R Benistant; Rick G Pleijhuis; Job van der Palen; Michiel M M Eijsvogel Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 2.816