Patient satisfaction with sleep study experience: findings from the Sleep Apnea Patient-Centered Outcomes Network

Level 2 Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Sleep Disorders: A Health Technology Assessment

Background

It is estimated that half of Canadians have insufficient sleep, which over time is associated with poor physical and mental health. Currently, the only publicly funded option for the diagnosis of sleep disorders in Ontario is an in-person overnight sleep study, performed in a hospital or independent health facility (known as a level 1 polysomnography). Level 2 polysomnography has been proposed as an alternative that can be conducted at home for the diagnosis of suspected sleep disorders, if considered to have sufficient diagnostic accuracy. We conducted a health technology assessment of level 2 polysomnography for the diagnosis of suspected sleep disorders in adults and children, which included an evaluation of the test performance, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of publicly funding level 2 polysomnography, and the experiences, preferences, and values of people with suspected sleep disorders.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to identify diagnostic accuracy, test failures and subjective measures of patient preferences. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study (using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [QUADAS-2] tool) and the quality of the body of evidence (according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] Working Group criteria). We performed a systematic literature search of economic evidence and conducted a primary economic evaluation and budget impact analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness and additional costs of publicly funding level 2 polysomnography for adults and children with suspected sleep disorders in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of using level 2 polysomnography, we spoke with people with sleep disorders.

Results

We included 10 studies that reported on diagnostic accuracy and found level 2 polysomnography had sensitivity ranging between 0.76-1.0 and specificity ranging between 0.40-1.0 (GRADE: Moderate to Very low) when compared with level 1 polysomnography. Studies reported test failure rates from 0% to 20%, with errors present in both level 1 and level 2 tests conducted (GRADE: Very low). As well, some of these studies reported patients were found to have mixed opinions about their experiences, with more people preferring their experience with level 2 testing at home and having better quality of sleep compared with when they underwent level 1 testing (GRADE not conducted).Our primary economic evaluation showed that for adults with suspected sleep disorders, the new diagnostic pathway with level 2 polysomnography was equally effective (outcome: confirmed diagnosis at the end of the pathway) as the current practice diagnostic pathway with level 1 polysomnography. With the assumption of a lower technical fee for level 2 polysomnography, the new diagnostic pathway with level 2 polysomnography was less costly than the current practice diagnostic pathway (a saving of $27 per person with a wide 95% credible interval [95% CrI, -$137 to $121]), indicating that the results are highly uncertain. For children, a new diagnostic pathway with level 2 polysomnography was associated with additional costs (mean, $9.70; 95% CrI, -$125 to $190), and similarly, this estimate was highly uncertain.We estimated that the budget impact of publicly funding level 2 polysomnography for adults is uncertain and could range from savings of $22 million to additional costs of $43 million. Publicly funding a diagnostic pathway with level 2 polysomnography for children could result in additional costs of about $0.005 million over the next 5 years.People with whom we spoke reported that their sleep disorder negatively impacted their day-to-day lives, mental health, social and family relationships, and work. Participants who had experience with in-clinic (level 1) polysomnography described negative experiences they had at the clinic. Most people said they would prefer at-home (level 2) polysomnography over in-clinic (level 1) polysomnography, citing comfort and convenience as the main reasons; however, some people who have physical limitations preferred level 1 (in-clinic) polysomnography because they needed assistance to set up the equipment.

Conclusions

Level 2 polysomnography may have good test performance for adults and children, with adequate diagnostic accuracy, compared with level 1 polysomnography. The economic analyses showed that level 2 polysomnography for adults with suspected sleep disorders could be potentially cost saving but there is high uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. Given very limited information, the cost-effectiveness of this technology is also highly uncertain for children and young adults with suspected sleep disorders. The budget impact of publicly funding level 2 polysomnography for adults could range from savings of $22 million to additional costs of $43 million. Publicly funding level 2 polysomnography in children would require additional costs of about $0.005 million over the next 5 years. A clearer understanding of uptake of the technology, test costs, and the implementation pathway for adopting the technology is needed to improve the certainty of the cost-effectiveness and budget impact estimates. People with sleep disorders highlighted how important getting a diagnosis had been in order to be able to seek proper treatment for their sleep disorder and improve their lives. For many people with suspected sleep disorders, undergoing a sleep study at home would be a more comfortable and convenient option than undergoing a sleep study in clinic.

Home Sleep Testing versus Traditional Polysomnography: Pros and Cons

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with long-term cardiovascular and respiratory comorbidities and increased burden on the health-care system. Early and accurate diagnosis is essential to reduce physical and financial implications of the disease. Polysomnography uses neurophysiologic channels as well as basic respiratory and sleep parameters to best estimate the presence and/or severity of OSA. Although home sleep testing may have the potential for more variable results, it is a viable alternative to increase access to diagnosis of OSA and facilitate initiation of positive airway pressure.

Precision Medicine in Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Home Diagnostic Testing: Caution in Interpretation of Home Studies Without Clinician Input Is Necessary

Purpose

To assess the validity of home sleep apnea test directed diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in a real-life clinical setting and establish the extent to which clinical evaluation alters diagnosis and therapeutic intervention, in the context of the evolving realm of precision medicine.

Methods

Retrospective consecutive cohort study of 505 patients referred to a single center between 15th September 2015 to 14th September 2016, multidisciplinary specialist sleep clinic presenting with a home sleep apnea test prior to referral. We evaluated the effect of sleep medicine practitioner (SMP) and ear, nose, and throat surgeon (ENTS) review on patient diagnoses, disease severity, and management options in OSA.

Results

Hundred and fifteen patients were included. Repeat evaluation with in-lab polysomnogram (PSG) was required in 46/115 (40.0%) of patients, of which 20/46 (43.5%) had OSA severity changed. Sleep medicine practitioner review decreased the need for repeat testing with formal in-lab PSG (p < 0.05) and increased patient acceptance of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as a long-term management option for OSA. Sleep medicine practitioner/ENTS review resulted in discovery of a non-OSA related sleep disorder or change in OSA severity in 47.8% (55/115). Ear, nose, and throat surgeon review resulted in additional or changed diagnosis in 75.7% (87/115) of patients.

Conclusion

In the clinical assessment and diagnosis of OSA, patients should be reviewed by medical practitioners with an interest in sleep disorders to better navigate the complexities of assessment, as well as the identification of co-morbid conditions.

Validation of the Withings Sleep Analyzer, an under-the-mattress device for the detection of moderate-severe sleep apnea syndrome

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic performance of a nonintrusive device placed under the mattress to detect sleep apnea syndrome.

METHODS

One hundred eighteen patients suspected to have obstructive sleep apnea syndrome completed a night at a sleep clinic with a simultaneous polysomnography (PSG) and recording with the Withings Sleep Analyzers. PSG nights were scored twice: first as simple polygraphy, then as PSG.

RESULTS

Average (standard deviation) apnea-hypopnea index from PSG was 31.2 events/h (25.0) and 32.8 events/h (29.9) according to the Withings Sleep Analyzers. The mean absolute error was 9.5 events/h. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve at thresholds of apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15 events/h were, respectively, sensitivity (Se)₁₅ = 88.0%, specificity (Sp)₁₅ = 88.6%, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) ₁₅ = 0.926. At the threshold of apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 30 events/h, results included Se₃₀ = 86.0%, Sp₃₀ = 91.2%, AUROC₃₀ = 0.954. The average total sleep time from PSG and the Withings Sleep Analyzers was 366.6 (61.2) and 392.4 (67.2) minutes, sleep efficiency was 82.5% (11.6) and 82.6% (11.6), and wake after sleep onset was 62.7 (48.0) and 45.2 (37.3) minutes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Withings Sleep Analyzers accurately detect moderate-severe sleep apnea syndrome in patients suspected of sleep apnea syndrome. This simple and automated approach could be of great clinical value given the high prevalence of sleep apnea syndrome in the general population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Validation of Withings Sleep for the Detection of Sleep Apnea Syndrome; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04234828; Identifier: NCT04234828.

Redesigning Care for OSA

Constrained by a limited supply of specialized personnel, health systems face a challenge in caring for the large number of patients with OSA. The complexity of this challenge is heightened by the varied clinical presentations of OSA and the diversity of treatment approaches. Innovations such as simplified home-based care models and the incorporation of nonspecialist providers have shown promise in the management of uncomplicated patients, producing comparable outcomes to the resource-intensive traditional approach. However, it is unclear if these innovations can meet the needs of all patients with OSA, including those with mild disease, atypical presentations, and certain comorbid medical and mental health conditions. This review discusses the diversity of needs in OSA care, the evidence base behind recent care innovations, and the potential limitations of each innovation in meeting the diversity of care needs. We propose how these innovations can fit within the stepped care and hub and spoke models in a way that addresses the full spectrum of OSA, and we discuss future research directions to assess the deployment of these innovations.