Literature DB >> 30064993

Management of obstructive sleep apnoea in a primary care vs sleep unit setting: a randomised controlled trial.

Nuria Tarraubella1, Manuel Sánchez-de-la-Torre2,3, Nuria Nadal1, Jordi De Batlle2, Iván Benítez2, Anunciación Cortijo2, Maria Cruz Urgelés1, Virginia Sanchez1, Iñigo Lorente1, M Mercé Lavega1, Araceli Fuentes1, Joan Clotet1, Laia Llort1, Lidia Vilo1, M Carmen Juni1, Aurelia Juarez1, Maribel Gracia1, Anabel L Castro-Grattoni2, Lydia Pascual2, Olga Minguez2, Juan F Masa3,4, Ferran Barbé2,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary care (PC) and sleep unit (SU) models for the management of subjects with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA).
METHODS: Multicentre, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 302 subjects with suspected OSA and/or resistant hypertension were consecutively enrolled, 149 were treated at 11 PC units and 153 patients at a SU. The primary outcomes were a 6-month change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score and Health Utilities Index (HUI). The non-inferiority margin for the ESS score was -2.0.
RESULTS: A total of 80.2% and 70.6% of the PC and SU patients were diagnosed with OSA, respectively, and 59.3% and 60.4% of those were treated with CPAP in PC and SU units, respectively. The Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index was similar between the groups (PC vs SU (median (IQR); 23.1 (26.8) events/h vs 21.8 (35.2) events/h), and the baseline ESS score was higher in the PC than in the SU group (10.3 (6.6) vs 9 (7.2)). After 6 months, the ESS score of the PC group decreased from a mean of 10.1 to 7.6 (-2.49; 95% CI -3.3 to -1.69), and that of the SU group decreased from 8.85 to 5.73 (-3.11; 95% CI -3.94 to 2.28). The adjusted difference between groups for the mean change in the ESS score was -1.25 (one-sided 95% CI -1.88; p=0.025), supporting the non-inferiority of PC management. We did not observe differences in the HUI between groups. The cost analysis showed a median savings of €558.14/patient for the PC setting compared with the SU setting.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suspected OSA, the PC model did not result in a worse ESS score or HUI than the specialist model and generated savings in terms of management cost. Therefore, the PC model was more cost-efficient than the SU model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Results; >>NCT02234765, Clinical Trials.gov. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  sleep apnoea

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30064993     DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  13 in total

1.  Primary care and sleep unit agreement in management decisions for sleep apnea: a prospective study in Spain.

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

Review 2.  Redesigning Care for OSA.

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

Review 3.  Economic evaluation of CPAP therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: a scoping review and evidence map.

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

4.  Treatment outcomes among rural and urban patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a prospective cohort study.

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

5.  Can primary care providers manage obstructive sleep apnea?

Authors:  Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; Sally Redman; R Doug McEvoy
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.062

Review 6.  Knowledge to action: a scoping review of approaches to educate primary care providers in the identification and management of routine sleep disorders.

Authors:  Svetlana King; Raechel Damarell; Lambert Schuwirth; Andrew Vakulin; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; R Doug McEvoy
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 4.062

7.  Preferred Attributes of Care Pathways for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea from the Perspective of Diagnosed Patients and High-Risk Individuals: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Andrea N Natsky; Andrew Vakulin; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; R Doug McEvoy; Robert J Adams; Billingsley Kaambwa
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-02-10       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 8.  Coordinated program between primary care and sleep unit for the management of obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Mercè Mayos; Patricia Peñacoba; Anna María Pedro Pijoan; Carme Santiveri; Xavier Flor; Joan Juvanteny; Gabriel Sampol; Patricia Lloberes; José Ignacio Aoiz; Joan Bayó; Núria Grau; Ana M Fortuna; Vicente Plaza; M Antònia Llauger
Journal:  NPJ Prim Care Respir Med       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 2.871

9.  Perspectives on primary care management of obstructive sleep apnea: a qualitative study of patients and health care providers.

Authors:  Sachin R Pendharkar; Kenneth Blades; Jenny E Kelly; Willis H Tsai; Dale C Lien; Fiona Clement; Jaana Woiceshyn; Kerry A McBrien
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.062

10.  Nocturnal blood pressure and nocturnal blood pressure fluctuations: the effect of short-term CPAP therapy and their association with the severity of obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Frauke Picard; Petroula Panagiotidou; Anne-Beke Tammen; Anamaria Wolf-Pütz; Maximilian Steffen; Hanno Julian Gerhardy; Sebastian Waßenberg; Rolf Michael Klein
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 4.062

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.