Zhigang Zhang1, Dan Yang2, Haiying Wang2, Xinmin Liu2. 1. Department of Geriatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, 100034, China. zhigang700@sina.com. 2. Department of Geriatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, 100034, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The NoSAS score has been shown to be a reliable screening tool for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in overall populations. This study aimed to explore the effects of age and sex on the predicting performance of this score. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1119 subjects aged ≥ 18 years and with a total sleep time of ≥ 4 h during overnight polysomnography. Discrimination was assessed by using areas under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs), while predictive parameters were calculated by using contingency tables. RESULTS: Overall, a NoSAS score of 8 points or higher resulted in sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for predicting an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of ≥ 20 events/h of 74%, 36%, and 0.63 (in non-elderly 73%, 46%, and 0.65; in elderly 91%, 17%, and 0.59; in men 85%, 18%, and 0.56; in women 52%, 76%, and 0.71, respectively). The AUCs at all AHI cutoffs were significantly lower in men than in women (all with p < 0.01), while the AUCs at AHI cutoff of 5, 15, and 30 events/h were significantly lower in elderly than in non-elderly (p < 0.01, 0.05, and 0.05, respectively). In non-elderly, a conventional NoSAS with cutoff of 7 or a modified NoSAS with age cutoff of 50 years provided sensitivity and specificity for predicting an AHI of ≥ 20 events/h of 87%, 37% and 80%, 36%, respectively, with comparable AUCs. In women, a conventional NoSAS with cutoff of 6 or a modified NoSAS with neck circumference cutoff of 35 cm provided sensitivity and specificity for predicting an AHI of ≥ 20 events/h of 85%, 39% and 79%, 52%, respectively, with comparable AUCs. CONCLUSIONS: NoSAS score has better discrimination but lower sensitivity for predicting OSA in non-elderly and women than in their counterparts. Age- and sex-specific cutoff values reverse this imbalance. Our results underline the preference of age- and sex-specific cutoff values and the need for better age- and sex-specific screening algorithms.
OBJECTIVES: The NoSAS score has been shown to be a reliable screening tool for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in overall populations. This study aimed to explore the effects of age and sex on the predicting performance of this score. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1119 subjects aged ≥ 18 years and with a total sleep time of ≥ 4 h during overnight polysomnography. Discrimination was assessed by using areas under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs), while predictive parameters were calculated by using contingency tables. RESULTS: Overall, a NoSAS score of 8 points or higher resulted in sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for predicting an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of ≥ 20 events/h of 74%, 36%, and 0.63 (in non-elderly 73%, 46%, and 0.65; in elderly 91%, 17%, and 0.59; in men 85%, 18%, and 0.56; in women 52%, 76%, and 0.71, respectively). The AUCs at all AHI cutoffs were significantly lower in men than in women (all with p < 0.01), while the AUCs at AHI cutoff of 5, 15, and 30 events/h were significantly lower in elderly than in non-elderly (p < 0.01, 0.05, and 0.05, respectively). In non-elderly, a conventional NoSAS with cutoff of 7 or a modified NoSAS with age cutoff of 50 years provided sensitivity and specificity for predicting an AHI of ≥ 20 events/h of 87%, 37% and 80%, 36%, respectively, with comparable AUCs. In women, a conventional NoSAS with cutoff of 6 or a modified NoSAS with neck circumference cutoff of 35 cm provided sensitivity and specificity for predicting an AHI of ≥ 20 events/h of 85%, 39% and 79%, 52%, respectively, with comparable AUCs. CONCLUSIONS: NoSAS score has better discrimination but lower sensitivity for predicting OSA in non-elderly and women than in their counterparts. Age- and sex-specific cutoff values reverse this imbalance. Our results underline the preference of age- and sex-specific cutoff values and the need for better age- and sex-specific screening algorithms.
Authors: Adeline Tan; Yueheng Hong; Linda W L Tan; Rob M van Dam; Yan Yi Cheung; Chi-Hang Lee Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Helena Marti-Soler; Camila Hirotsu; Pedro Marques-Vidal; Peter Vollenweider; Gérard Waeber; Martin Preisig; Mehdi Tafti; Sergio Brasil Tufik; Lia Bittencourt; Sergio Tufik; José Haba-Rubio; Raphael Heinzer Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Richard W W Lee; Sivabalan Vasudavan; David S Hui; Tania Prvan; Peter Petocz; M Ali Darendeliler; Peter A Cistulli Journal: Sleep Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Paul E Peppard; Terry Young; Jodi H Barnet; Mari Palta; Erika W Hagen; Khin Mae Hla Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-04-14 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Richard B Berry; Rohit Budhiraja; Daniel J Gottlieb; David Gozal; Conrad Iber; Vishesh K Kapur; Carole L Marcus; Reena Mehra; Sairam Parthasarathy; Stuart F Quan; Susan Redline; Kingman P Strohl; Sally L Davidson Ward; Michelle M Tangredi Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 4.062