Feltner C, Wallace IF, Aymes S, Cook Middleton J, Hicks KL, Schwimmer M, Baker C, Balio CP, Moore D, Voisin CE, Jonas DE. Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
JAMA 2022;
328:1951-1971. [PMID:
36378203 DOI:
10.1001/jama.2022.18357]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with adverse health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To review the evidence on screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults or those with unrecognized OSA symptoms to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and trial registries through August 23, 2021; surveillance through September 23, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language studies of screening test accuracy, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening or treatment of OSA reporting health outcomes or harms, and systematic reviews of treatment reporting changes in blood pressure and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) scores.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of intervention trials.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Test accuracy, excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep-related and general health-related quality of life (QOL), and harms.
RESULTS
Eighty-six studies were included (N = 11 051). No study directly compared screening with no screening. Screening accuracy of the Multivariable Apnea Prediction score followed by unattended home sleep testing for detecting severe OSA syndrome (AHI ≥30 and Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS] score >10) measured as the area under the curve in 2 studies (n = 702) was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.82) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90). Five studies assessing the accuracy of other screening tools were heterogeneous and results were inconsistent. Compared with inactive control, positive airway pressure was associated with a significant improvement in ESS score from baseline (pooled mean difference, -2.33 [95% CI, -2.75 to -1.90]; 47 trials; n = 7024), sleep-related QOL (standardized mean difference, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.42]; 17 trials; n = 3083), and general health-related QOL measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) mental health component summary score change (pooled mean difference, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.95 to 3.44]; 15 trials; n = 2345) and SF-36 physical health component summary score change (pooled mean difference, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.29 to 2.77]; 13 trials; n = 2031). Use of mandibular advancement devices was also associated with a significantly larger ESS score change compared with controls (pooled mean difference, -1.67 [95% CI, 2.09 to -1.25]; 10 trials; n = 1540). Reporting of other health outcomes was sparse; no included trial found significant benefit associated with treatment on mortality, cardiovascular events, or motor vehicle crashes. In 3 systematic reviews, positive airway pressure was significantly associated with reduced blood pressure; however, the difference was relatively small (2-3 mm Hg).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The accuracy and clinical utility of OSA screening tools that could be used in primary care settings were uncertain. Positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices reduced ESS score. Trials of positive airway pressure found modest improvement in sleep-related and general health-related QOL but have not established whether treatment reduces mortality or improves most other health outcomes.
Collapse