Self-perceived sleep during the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test: how does it predict accidental risk in patients with sleep disorders?

Phenotyping patients treated for obstructive sleep apnea with persistent objective impaired alertness or subjective sleepiness

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sleepiness in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with accidental and economic burden, as well as cardiovascular risk. Despite OSA treatment, 10-28 % of patients report residual sleepiness. Its determinants, as well as those of objective impaired alertness remain poorly known. In this study, we investigated factors associated with residual subjective sleepiness and objective impaired alertness in patients treated for OSA.

METHODS

Consecutive OSA treated patients referred for maintenance of wakefulness tests (MWT) at a tertiary university center were recruited between 2017 and 2020. Clinical data and polysomnography parameters were compared between patients with vs without subjective sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale, ESS≥11) and those with vs without impaired alertness (at least one trial with sleep onset on MWT). A multivariate logistic model was used to assess explanatory variables of MWT and ESS results.

RESULTS

We included 141 patients, of whom 12.8 % had both subjective sleepiness and objective impaired alertness, 17.7 % objective impaired alertness only and 9.2 % subjective sleepiness only. Self-reported history of car accident/near miss, smoking history and ESS≥11 were significantly associated with objective impaired alertness whereas residual Apnea-hypopnea Index and CPAP use were not. The only significant variable associated with ESS at the time of MWT evaluation was initial ESS. Patients with objective impaired alertness only were more often smokers (52 % vs 19 %, p = 0.01), had a higher body mass index (BMI) (32 vs 29 kg/m2, p = 0.05), and showed lower initial ESS (11 vs 13, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one third of OSA treated patients referred for MWT have objective impaired alertness and/or subjective sleepiness. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive medical assessment including accident history, subjective sleepiness and comorbidities. Particular attention should be paid to smoking patients with high BMI, who are at risk of impaired alertness with no report of subjective sleepiness.

Objective evaluation of excessive daytime sleepiness

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is multifactorial. It combines, among other things, an excessive propensity to fall asleep ("physiological sleepiness") and a continuous non-imperative sleepiness (or drowsiness/hypo-arousal) leading to difficulties remaining awake and maintaining sustained attention and vigilance over the long term ("manifest sleepiness"). There is no stand-alone biological measure of EDS. EDS measures can either capture the severity of physiological sleepiness, which corresponds to the propensity to fall asleep, or the severity of manifest sleepiness, which corresponds to behavioral consequences of sleepiness and reduced vigilance. Neuropsychological tests (The psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), Oxford Sleep Resistance Test (OSLeR), Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART)) explore manifest sleepiness through several sustained attention tests but the lack of normative values and standardized protocols make the results difficult to interpret and use in clinical practice. Neurophysiological tests explore the two main aspects of EDS, i.e. the propensity to fall asleep (Multiple sleep latency test, MSLT) and the capacity to remain awake (Maintenance of wakefulness test, MWT). The MSLT and the MWT are widely used in clinical practice. The MSLT is recognized as the "gold standard" test for measuring the severity of the propensity to fall asleep and it is a diagnostic criterion for narcolepsy. The MWT measures the ability to stay awake. The MWT is not a diagnostic test as it is recommended only to evaluate the evolution of EDS and efficacy of EDS treatment. Even if some efforts to standardize the protocols for administration of these tests have been ongoing, MSLT and MWT have numerous limitations: age effect, floor or ceiling effects, binding protocol, no normal or cutoff value (or determined in small samples), and no or low test-retest values in some pathologies. Moreover, the recommended electrophysiological set-up and the determination of sleep onset using the 30‑sec epochs scoring rule show some limitations. New, more precise neurophysiological techniques should aim to detect very brief periods of physiological sleepiness and, in the future, the brain local phenomenon of sleepiness likely to underpin drowsiness, which could be called "physiological drowsiness".

The Bordeaux Sleepiness Scale (BOSS): a new questionnaire to measure sleep-related driving risk

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Sleepiness is a well-known risk factor for traffic accidents. Our study presents a new questionnaire, the Bordeaux Sleepiness Scale (BOSS), specifically designed to evaluate sleep-related driving risk in patients with sleep disorders.

METHODS

The BOSS was designed by gathering data on sociodemographics, sleepiness, driving items, and traffic accident exposure (kilometers driven) in the past year of 293 patients followed for sleep disorders at a French sleep clinic. It was then validated on data from a large population-based cohort of 7,296 highway drivers. Its performance was compared to the Epworth sleepiness scale and to self-reported episodes of severe sleepiness at the wheel. Receiver operating characteristic curves were computed.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of the BOSS (cutoff = 3) to predict sleep-related near-misses or accidents was, respectively, 82% and 74%, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83. In a cohort of patients and a large population-based cohort, the area under the curve of the BOSS was significantly larger than that of the Epworth sleepiness scale (P < .001). Although the areas under the curve were equivalent between the BOSS and sleepiness at the wheel, the specificity of the BOSS was higher.

CONCLUSIONS

The BOSS scale combining exposure (kilometers driven) and self-perception of situational sleepiness provides a simple and reliable evaluation of sleep-related driving risk. This short, specific questionnaire should be promoted as a first-line tool to evaluate the risk of traffic accidents in sleepy patients.

CITATION

Philip P, Micoulaud-Franchi J-A, Taillard J, et al. The Bordeaux Sleepiness Scale (BOSS): a new questionnaire to measure sleep-related driving risk. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(5):957-965.

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.

Migraine may disturb sleep perception during sleep onset: a retrospective data analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVES

As sleep latency is an important factor in the diagnosis of many disorders, it is important to know whether the patient's self-reported evaluation of sleep latency corresponds with an objectively measured evaluation. Some studies indicate that patients usually overestimate their sleep latency. We sought to determine how comorbidities affect the patient's ability to assess their sleep latency.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 240 patients who had a polysomnography recorded at our sleep unit or at home in 2017-2020. Data on comorbidities were collected from hospital records.

RESULTS

Mean objective sleep latency (29.5 minutes, standard deviation [SD] 35.5) was significantly lower than self-reported sleep (37.4 minutes, SD 41.6) (P < .001). The patients who overestimated their sleep latency had higher mean apnea-hypopnea index (18.8 events/h, SD 21.6, vs 13.4 events/h, SD 12.8; P = .04) and higher mean sleep efficiency (81.7%, SD 13.6%, vs 75.2%, SD 13.9%; P = .004) than those who underestimated their sleep latency. There were significantly more patients with migraine in the overestimation group than in the underestimation group (20/159 patients vs 3/81 patients; P = .035). This difference was not observed in patients with headache without migraine (P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

We hypothesize that migraine is markedly associated with overestimation of sleep latency. This overestimation was not observed in patients with other headache types. Further studies are needed to explore the relation between migraine and sleep onset misperception.

CITATION

Rantanen O, Hollmen M, Bachour A. Migraine may disturb sleep perception during sleep onset: a retrospective data analysis. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(9):2113-2117.