David T Plante1, Jesse D Cook2, Michael L Prairie3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) has limitations when evaluating disorders of hypersomnolence with unknown etiology. Alternative measures of hypersomnolence may objectively identify pathology in patients with complaints of daytime sleepiness that may not be captured by the MSLT alone. This study evaluated the impact of a multimodal hypersomnolence assessment relative to MSLT in patients with unexplained hypersomnolence. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with unexplained hypersomnolence were included in the analyzed sample. Polysomnography was performed without prescribed wake time, and the psychomotor vigilance task and pupillographic sleepiness test were completed between MSLT nap opportunities. Presence or absence of hypersomnolence for each assessment was defined using a priori cutpoints. Proportions of patients identified as hypersomnolent using the multimodal assessment relative to MSLT alone were evaluated, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of ancillary hypersomnolence measures relative to MSLT as a gold standard. RESULTS: The multimodal assessment more than doubled the proportion of patients identified as having objective deficits relative to MSLT ≤ 8 minutes alone. The combination of excessive sleep duration, lapses on the psychomotor vigilance task, and impairments on the pupillographic sleepiness test also had perfect sensitivity in identifying all patients identified as sleepy by the MSLT across 3 different MSLT cutpoints (5, 8, and 10 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the insufficiency of the MSLT as a singular tool to identify objective pathology in persons with unexplained hypersomnolence. Further efforts to refine and standardize multimodal assessments will likely improve diagnostic acumen and research into the causes of these disorders.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) has limitations when evaluating disorders of hypersomnolence with unknown etiology. Alternative measures of hypersomnolence may objectively identify pathology in patients with complaints of daytime sleepiness that may not be captured by the MSLT alone. This study evaluated the impact of a multimodal hypersomnolence assessment relative to MSLT in patients with unexplained hypersomnolence. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with unexplained hypersomnolence were included in the analyzed sample. Polysomnography was performed without prescribed wake time, and the psychomotor vigilance task and pupillographic sleepiness test were completed between MSLT nap opportunities. Presence or absence of hypersomnolence for each assessment was defined using a priori cutpoints. Proportions of patients identified as hypersomnolent using the multimodal assessment relative to MSLT alone were evaluated, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of ancillary hypersomnolence measures relative to MSLT as a gold standard. RESULTS: The multimodal assessment more than doubled the proportion of patients identified as having objective deficits relative to MSLT ≤ 8 minutes alone. The combination of excessive sleep duration, lapses on the psychomotor vigilance task, and impairments on the pupillographic sleepiness test also had perfect sensitivity in identifying all patients identified as sleepy by the MSLT across 3 different MSLT cutpoints (5, 8, and 10 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the insufficiency of the MSLT as a singular tool to identify objective pathology in persons with unexplained hypersomnolence. Further efforts to refine and standardize multimodal assessments will likely improve diagnostic acumen and research into the causes of these disorders.
Authors: Astrid van der Heide; Mojca K M van Schie; Gert Jan Lammers; Yves Dauvilliers; Isabelle Arnulf; Geert Mayer; Claudio L Bassetti; Claire-Li Ding; Philippe Lehert; J Gert van Dijk Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Yun Li; Alexandros Vgontzas; Ilia Kritikou; Julio Fernandez-Mendoza; Maria Basta; Slobodanka Pejovic; Jordan Gaines; Edward O Bixler Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: David B Rye; Donald L Bliwise; Kathy Parker; Lynn Marie Trotti; Prabhjyot Saini; Jacqueline Fairley; Amanda Freeman; Paul S Garcia; Michael J Owens; James C Ritchie; Andrew Jenkins Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Lynn Marie Trotti; Prabhjyot Saini; Erin Bremer; Christianna Mariano; Danielle Moron; David B Rye; Donald L Bliwise Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 4.324