Evaluation of CPAP mask performance during 3 years of mask usage: time for reconsideration of renewal policies?

Mask side-effects are related to gender in long-term CPAP: results from the InterfaceVent real-life study

BACKGROUND

Over the past three decades, our understanding of sleep apnea in women has advanced, revealing disparities in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment compared to men. However, no real-life study to date has explored the relationship between mask-related side effects (MRSEs) and gender in the context of long-term CPAP.

METHODS

The InterfaceVent-CPAP study is a prospective real-life cross-sectional study conducted in an apneic adult cohort undergoing at least 3 months of CPAP with unrestricted mask-access (34 different masks, no gender specific mask series). MRSE were assessed by the patient using visual analog scales (VAS). CPAP-non-adherence was defined as a mean CPAP-usage of less than 4 h per day. The primary objective of this ancillary study was to investigate the impact of gender on the prevalence of MRSEs reported by the patient. Secondary analyses assessed the impact of MRSEs on CPAP-usage and CPAP-non-adherence depending on the gender.

RESULTS

A total of 1484 patients treated for a median duration of 4.4 years (IQ25-75: 2.0-9.7) were included in the cohort, with women accounting for 27.8%. The prevalence of patient-reported mask injury, defined as a VAS score ≥ 5 (p = 0.021), was higher in women than in men (9.6% versus 5.3%). For nasal pillow masks, the median MRSE VAS score for dry mouth was higher in women (p = 0.039). For oronasal masks, the median MRSE VAS score for runny nose was higher in men (p = 0.039). Multivariable regression analyses revealed that, for both women and men, dry mouth was independently and negatively associated with CPAP-usage, and positively associated with CPAP-non-adherence.

CONCLUSION

In real-life patients treated with long-term CPAP, there are gender differences in patient reported MRSEs. In the context of personalized medicine, these results suggest that the design of future masks should consider these gender differences if masks specifically for women are developed. However, only dry mouth, a side effect not related to mask design, impacts CPAP-usage and non-adherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

INTERFACEVENT IS REGISTERED WITH CLINICALTRIALS.GOV (NCT03013283).FIRST REGISTRATION DATE IS 2016-12-23.

Nasal pillow vs. standard nasal mask for treatment of OSA: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of nasal pillows with standard nasal masks in the treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

A digitalized search was carried out in four different databases including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and CENTRAL using relevant keywords along with a manual search in relevant journals. All comparative studies comparing outcomes of using a nasal pillow with the use of standard nasal masks for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in patients with OSA were included. The qualitative analysis was carried out by tabulating the demographic data. The quantitative data were subjected to meta-analysis. The quality of comparative studies (both retrospective and prospective cohorts) was evaluated using New-castle Ottawa scale (NOS).

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies (eight prospective and six retrospective) were included in the review. Of them, five studies were randomized and were of cross-over study design. No significant differences were observed in achieved CPAP and residual apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) levels between the nasal pillow and nasal mask with SMD - 0.05 95% CI [- 0.18, 0.09], p = 0.50 and SMD - 0.13 95% CI [- 0.28, 0.03], p = 0.12, respectively. However, nasal pillow usage was associated with better CPAP adherence with a difference of only + 0.29 min/night as compared to a standard nasal mask, with SMD 0.29 95% CI [0.07, 0.50], p = 0.009.

CONCLUSION

Nasal pillow and standard nasal mask were equally effective in terms of residual AHI level and achieved similar therapeutic CPAP pressures. However, the difference in CPAP adherence between groups, though statistically significant, is of questionable clinical significance.

International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea

BACKGROUND

Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA).

METHODS

Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBR-R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA-associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence-based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.