| Literature DB >> 31936521 |
Veronica Perez-Cabezas1, Carmen Ruiz-Molinero1, Jose Jesus Jimenez-Rejano2, Gloria Gonzalez-Medina1, Alejandro Galan-Mercant1, Rocio Martin-Valero3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have suggested a pathophysiological relationship between obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). The aim of this study is to evaluate the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in AD and its relationship with neurocognitive function improvement.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer disease; continuous positive airway pressure; neurocognitive function
Year: 2020 PMID: 31936521 PMCID: PMC7019587 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9010181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart [16].
Main characteristics of the studies included in the review.
| Study Type of Evidence | Age, Mean (Standard Deviation) | Sample Size (Complete the Study) | Variables | DR | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| t-CPAP | 39 | ESS | A | EES |
|
| t-CPAP | 52 (12 loss) | 14 Neuropsychol. tests (composite score) | B | 3 weeks NO significant differences. |
|
| 75.7 (5.9) | 10 patients | PSQI | - | —CPAP +: remained stable or improved in almost all measures |
|
| t-CPAP | 52 | Polysomnography (1st night and at 3 weeks) | B | 1st night |
|
| t-CPAP group | 28 (5 loss) | Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) | - | T-CPAP = (−0.7) |
t-CPAP: Therapeutic continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) group. p-CPAP: placebo CPAP group. ESS: Epworth Sleepiness Scale. RDI: Respiratory Disturbance Index. AHI: apnea-hypopnea index. DR: degrees of recommendation. PSQI. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. FOSQ: Functional Outcome of Sleep Questionnaire. Grade “A” means that the recommendation is based on strong evidence. Second, grade “B” is based on sufficient evidence to make a clear recommendation.
PEDro Score for Methodological Quality Assessment of 3 Studies.
| Section Topic | Study | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Chong et al. [ | Ancoli-Israel et al. [ | Cooke et al. [ | |
| 1. Eligibility criteria were specified | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Randomly allocated to groups | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Concealed allocation | No | No | Yes |
| 4. Comparability of base | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Blinding of subjects | No | No | Yes |
| 6. Blinding of therapists | No | No | No |
| 7. Blinding of assessors | No | No | No |
| 8. Proper continuation | No | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Intention to treat | Yes | No | Yes |
| 10. Between-group statistical comparisons | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 11. Point measure and measures of variability | No | Yes | Yes |
| Total | 4/10 | 5/10 | 8/10 |