French consensus. Hypersomnolence: Evaluation and diagnosis

Guidelines for the assessment and management of residual sleepiness in obstructive apnea-hypopnea syndrome: Endorsed by the French Sleep Research and Medicine Society (SFRMS) and the French Speaking Society of Respiratory Diseases (SPLF)

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is frequent among patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and can persist despite the optimal correction of respiratory events (apnea, hypopnea and respiratory efforts), using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or mandibular advancement device. Symptoms like apathy and fatigue may be mistaken for EDS. In addition, EDS has multi-factorial origin, which makes its evaluation complex. The marketing authorization [Autorisation de Mise sur le Marché (AMM)] for two wake-promoting agents (solriamfetol and pitolisant) raises several practical issues for clinicians. This consensus paper presents recommendations of good clinical practice to identify and evaluate EDS in this context, and to manage and follow-up the patients. It was conducted under the mandate of the French Societies for sleep medicine and for pneumology [Société Française de Recherche et de Médecine du Sommeil (SFRMS) and Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française (SPLF)]. A management algorithm is suggested, as well as a list of conditions during which the patient should be referred to a sleep center or a sleep specialist. The benefit/risk balance of a wake-promoting drug in residual EDS in OSAHS patients must be regularly reevaluated, especially in elderly patients with increased cardiovascular and psychiatric disorders risks. This consensus is based on the scientific knowledge at the time of the publication and may be revised according to their evolution.

Evaluation of hypersomnolence: From symptoms to diagnosis, a multidimensional approach

Hypersomnolence is a major public health issue given its high frequency, its impact on academic/occupational functioning and on accidentology, as well as its heavy socio-economic burden. The positive and aetiological diagnosis is crucial, as it determines the therapeutic strategy. It must consider the following aspects: i) hypersomnolence is a complex concept referring to symptoms as varied as excessive daytime sleepiness, excessive need for sleep, sleep inertia, or drowsiness, all of which warrant specific dedicated investigations; ii) the boundary between physiological and abnormal hypersomnolence is blurred, since most symptoms can be encountered in the general population to varying degrees without being considered as pathological, meaning that their severity, frequency, context of occurrence and related impairment need to be carefully assessed; iii) investigation of hypersomnolence relies on scales/questionnaires as well as behavioural and neurophysiological tests, which measure one or more dimensions, keeping in mind the possible discrepancy between objective and subjective assessment; iv) aetiological reasoning is driven by knowledge of the main sleep regulation mechanisms, epidemiology, and associated symptoms. The need to assess hypersomnolence is growing, both for its management, and for assessing the efficacy of treatments. The landscape of tools available for investigating hypersomnolence is constantly evolving, in parallel with research into sleep physiology and technical advances. These investigations face the challenges of reconciling subjective perception and objective data, making tools accessible to as many people as possible and predicting the risk of accidents.

Sleepiness in adults: An umbrella review of a complex construct

Sleepiness involves many dimensions that require investigation. Since sleepiness is often defined operationally, we exhaustively inventoried all the assessment tools designed to measure it in an umbrella review, without any preconceptions, i.e. a review of reviews. We included all reviews and systematic reviews related to sleepiness assessment tools published up to March 2021. Three investigators independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion and identified 36 relevant reviews. In total, 99 tools were identified and classified into 8 categories. We classified them depending on their category, their publication year and the number of mentions in the 36 included reviews. The 6 most frequently cited were the Epworth sleepiness scale, the multiple sleep latency test, the maintenance of wakefulness test, the Stanford sleepiness scale, the Karolinska sleepiness scale, and the psychomotor vigilance task. Despite the limitation that we may have missed some recently developed tools, this historical perspective on sleepiness measurement is a first step toward a better delineation of the different dimensions underlying the constructs of sleepiness, and will serve as a basis for further discussion in the clinical and research sleep community.

Interest of the BLAST paradigm and salivary markers for the evaluation of sleepiness in drivers

Objectives

Sleepiness is associated with decreased cognitive abilities and remains one of the main causes of fatal road accidents. The tools currently available to assess sleepiness, such as questionnaires, are subject to intra- and inter-individual variability, while multiple sleep latency tests are only feasible in few sleep laboratories. The main objective of this study was to explore new potential markers (neurocognitive, biological) to objectively assess sleepiness in drivers.

Methods

A total of 186 drivers (median age 44 years, range 20–74 years, 73% men, 14% obese) were included during a break at a highway service area, in the morning, while on the road for vacation. Questionnaires on sleepiness and sleep characteristics (habitual and on the night before travel), the Bron-Lyon Attention Stability Test (BLAST), and two salivary samples (α-amylase and oxalate) were collected. Associations between measures of sleepiness [Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS)], sleep characteristics, neurocognitive, and biological markers were tested using regression models adjusted for confounding factors.

Results

The night before travel, 83% of the drivers reduced their sleep time and 30% slept 5 h or less. The higher the number of miles to be traveled, the higher the decrease, and the shorter the sleep time. The night before travel, 18 and 24% of the drivers complained of poor sleep quality and difficulty falling asleep. The sleep characteristics on the night before travel were associated with the habitual sleep characteristics. At the time of the test, 47% of the drivers scored pathologically on the SSS. Poor sleep quality and difficulty falling asleep the night before travel were associated with increased sleepiness as assessed by the SSS and decreased attentional ability as assessed by the BLAST. No association between salivary markers and acute sleepiness was observed.

Conclusions

The sleep characteristics of the night before travel were associated with sleepiness and attentional performance. The SSS and the BLAST could be used by individual drivers in a self-evaluation context. Biological markers showed a high variability and limited association with sleep parameters across subjects, emphasizing the need for within-subject designs to assess their usefulness.

Depression and Hypersomnia: A Complex Association

Hypersomnolence is a clinically defined syndrome characterized by the association of prolonged nocturnal sleep, impaired arousal quality, and sleep inertia. Hypersomnolence is the major feature of central hypersomnias and is frequently reported in various mood disorders, such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or seasonal affective disorder. Assessment of hypersomnolence is challenging in depressed patients, with objective tests often in the normal range despite a high level of sleepiness complaint. On the other hand, many patients with central hypersomnias reported depressive symptoms. The self-assessment of mood symptoms in patients with central hypersomnias may overdiagnose depression with an overlap between both conditions.