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.

Cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the treatment of mild obstructive sleep apnea: an exploratory analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the potential cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for treatment of mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate health state progression, incremental cost, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of NMES compared to no treatment, continuous airway pressure (CPAP), or oral appliance (OA) treatment. The base case assumed no cardiovascular (CV) benefit for any of the interventions, while potential CV benefit was considered in scenario analyses. Therapy effectiveness was based on a recent multi-center trial for NMES, and on the TOMADO and MERGE studies for OA and CPAP. Costs, considered from a United States payer perspective, were projected over lifetime for a 48-year-old cohort, 68% of whom were male. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of USD150,000 per QALY gained was applied.

RESULTS

From a baseline AHI of 10.2 events/hour, NMES, OA and CPAP reduced the AHI to 6.9, 7.0 and 1.4 events/hour respectively. Long-term therapy adherence was estimated at 65-75% for NMES and 55% for both OA and CPAP. Compared to no treatment, NMES added between 0.268 and 0.536 QALYs and between USD7,481 and USD17,445 in cost, resulting in ICERs between USD15,436 and USD57,844 per QALY gained. Depending on long-term adherence assumptions, either NMES or CPAP were found to be the preferred treatment option, with NMES becoming more attractive with younger age and assuming CPAP was not used for the full night in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

NMES might be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with mild OSA.

Estimation of Value-Based Price for 48 High-Technology Medical Devices

Value-based price is estimated quite frequently for medicines, but its application to medical devices is scarce. While some reports have been published in which this parameter has occasionally been determined for devices, no large-scale application has yet been reported. Our objective was to pursue a systematic analysis of the literature published on value-based prices of medical devices. Pertinent papers were selected upon the criterion that the value-based price was reported for the device examined. The real prices of the devices were compared with their values of value-based price and the ratios between real price versus value-based price were calculated. A total of 239 economic articles focused on high-technology medical devices were selected from a standard PubMed search. Among these, the proportion of analyses unsuitable for value-based price estimation was high (191/239; 80%), whereas adequate clinical and economic information for estimating this parameter was available in 48 cases (20%). Standard equations of cost-effectiveness were applied. The value-based price was determined according to a willingness-to-pay threshold of 60,000 € per quality-adjusted life year. Real prices of devices were compared with the corresponding estimates of value-based prices. From each analysis, we extracted also the value of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Our final dataset included 47 analyses because one was published twice. There were five analyses in which the ICER could be estimated for the treatment, but not for the device. In the dataset of 42 analyses with complete information, 36 out of 42 devices (86%) were found to have an ICER lower than the pre-specified threshold (favorable ICER). Three ICERs were borderline. A separate analysis was conducted on the other three devices that showed an ICER substantially greater than the threshold (unfavorable ICER). Regarding value-based prices, the values of real price were appreciably lower than the corresponding value-based price in 36 cases (86%). For three devices, the real price was substantially higher than the value-based price. In the remaining three cases, real prices and value-based prices were very similar. To our knowledge, this is the first experience in which a systematic analysis of the literature has been focused on the application of value-based pricing in the field of high-technology devices. Our results are encouraging and suggest a wider application of cost-effectiveness in this field.

Maxillomandibular Advancement and Upper Airway Stimulation for Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) and upper airway stimulation (UAS) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment. A MEDLINE and Embase database search of articles on MMA and/or UAS for OSA was conducted. Twenty-one MMA studies and nine UAS studies were included. All the MMA studies demonstrated a reduction in apnea hypopnea index (AHI) postoperatively, and success rates ranged from 41.1% to 100%. Ten MMA studies reported pre- and postoperative Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), and all but one study demonstrated a reduction in ESS. In the UAS studies, all but one demonstrated a reduction in AHI, and success rates ranged from 26.7% to 77.8%. In the eight UAS studies reporting pre- and postoperative ESS, an ESS reduction was demonstrated. No studies reported any deaths related to MMA or UAS. The most common postoperative complications after MMA and UAS were facial paresthesia in the mandibular area and discomfort due to electrical stimulation, respectively. This systematic review suggests that both MMA and UAS are effective and generally safe therapies for OSA. However, due to the limitations of the included studies, there is no evidence yet to directly compare these two procedures in OSA treatment.

Efficacy of expansion pharyngoplasty and hypoglossal nerve stimulation in treating sleep apnea

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether a palatal conversion procedure combined with a second-stage hypoglossal nerve stimulator (HGNS) insertion can be beneficial for those patients who have a complete concentric velopharyngeal collapse and may initially not meet the criteria for use of HGNS.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review included all patients who underwent a planned multi-level sleep surgery including expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty (ESP) followed by HGNS. All patients had a complete concentric collapse (CCC) of the velopharynx (VP) on pre-intervention drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) and were initially not a candidate for HGNS. These patients then underwent ESP followed by a DISE to confirm elimination of the CCC of the VP. They then went on to HGNS implantation several months later followed by a sleep study.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were identified and included in the retrospective chart analysis. All patients who underwent ESP successfully converted their VP from CCC to an anterior-posterior collapse pattern and thus met inclusion criteria for HGNS. After the HGNS was implanted, patients showed a significant reduction of the mean AHI from 53.9 before ESP to 8.2 after ESP and HGNS and a decrease in the Epworth Sleep Score (ESS) from a mean of 13.3 to 5.7.

CONCLUSION

ESP can be effective in eliminating the CCC of the VP thus making patients become HGNS candidates. In selected OSA patients, who have multilevel upper airway obstruction with complete concentric VP collapse, the combination of ESP and HGNS insertion should be considered as a planned 2-staged approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Patient Related Outcome and Therapy Effects in Stimulation Treatment of Sleep-Related Breathing Disorders

Several neurostimulation devices exist for the treatment of various sleep-related breathing diseases. The most data for hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) in the therapy of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) derive the HNS with respiratory sensing. Herewith, daytime sleepiness measured with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was improved in several publications by 5 points with a stability shown for up to several years. Sleep related quality of life, documented with the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, increased by 2 points. In many cohorts showed a mean usage of 5 to 6 hours per night. Under the consideration of shorter follow-ups and smaller group sizes, the ESS improved by 4 under unilateral continuous HNS and by 3 under bilateral HNS. Transvenous stimulation of the phrenic nerve is approved for the treatment in central sleep apnea. In a pivotal trial with 5 year follow-up data, an ESS reduction is documented by 3 points. There is one publication describing a usage of more than 5 hours. The daytime enoral neuromuscular electrical therapy improved ESS (2 points) and sleep-related quality of life of the snoring patients and the bed partner. The daytime training for the effects during the night adherence is given with 83%. For all described devices, there are running or announced studies and/or registry trials that consider patient related outcome.

Breathing Synchronised Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation with Inspire for Untreated Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnoea/Hypopnoea Syndrome: A Simulated Cost-Utility Analysis from a National Health Service Perspective

BACKGROUND

Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) with Inspire is a novel treatment indicated for moderate or severe obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS), intolerant to or unable to be treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of treating moderate or severe OSAHS, in patients intolerant to CPAP, with HNS, compared with standard care, from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A cohort state transition model was developed to compare HNS with Inspire with no treatment in UK adult patients with moderate or severe OSAHS who have previously tried and have not responded to CPAP therapy. Published literature was applied in the model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; 2019 Great British pounds per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained), from an NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, over a cohort's lifetime.

RESULTS

The model base-case predicts that patients undergoing HNS will incur lifetime costs of £65,026 compared with £36,727 among untreated patients. The HNS cohort would gain 12.72 QALYs compared with 11.15 QALYs in the no-treatment arm. The ICER of treating severe OSAHS with HNS is therefore estimated to be £17,989 per QALYs gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that at a threshold of £30,000/QALY, HNS has a 69% probability of being cost effective. Limitations of the model include uncertainty around the utility data that were not sourced directly from HNS clinical trials. There is further uncertainty in the relationship between change in the Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) and reduction in ischaemic heart disease and stroke because of difficulty capturing the reduction in risk over a long time horizon in studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a patient's lifetime, HNS with Inspire is expected to be cost effective when compared with no treatment in patients with severe OSAHS who have tried and have not responded to CPAP, from an NHS perspective.

Upper Airway Stimulation versus Untreated Comparators in Positive Airway Pressure Treatment-Refractory Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Rationale: Understand the impact of insurance coverage on sleep apnea outcomes for patients awaiting upper airway stimulation.Objectives: Examine the natural history of impact of upper airway stimulation treatment versus insurance denial (comparators) on sleep apnea outcomes.Methods: A parallel-arm experimental study design was used to compare objective sleep apnea measures and patient-reported outcomes in those who received upper airway stimulation approval versus denial in a multinational prospective study (NCT02907398). Wilcoxon rank-sum test and logistic regression models were used to assess for differences of objective and subjective outcome changes in those who underwent upper airway stimulation versus no treatment comparators.Results: A greater reduction in apnea-hypopnea index was observed in those who underwent upper airway stimulation (n = 230, follow-up: 360 ± 171 d) versus no treatment (n = 100, follow-up: 272 ± 278 d), that is, -19.1 ± 15.8 versus -8.1 ± 20.9, respectively, P < 0.001, with consistent findings observed with nocturnal hypoxia measures. Concordantly, a greater improvement noted with subjective measures of dozing propensity was observed in patients undergoing upper airway stimulation versus comparators (Epworth Score, -5.1 ± 5.5 vs. 1.8 ± 3.7, respectively, P < 0.001) and overall sleep-related patient-reported outcomes. Women and those with previous oral appliance use had a lower odds of insurance approval (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.22-0.71 and OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.69, respectively).Conclusions: Objective and subjective sleep apnea burden was more improved in those receiving upper airway stimulation versus not. Results underscore the need to optimize clinical care pathways focused on effective treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea who are not upper airway stimulation-insurance eligible and prioritize public health policy initiatives to address insurance-based sex-specific disparities.

Home Sleep Testing to Direct Upper Airway Stimulation Therapy Optimization for Sleep Apnea

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Selective upper airway stimulation (sUAS) is a well-established treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This study aimed to determine if there are benefits in performing a home sleep test (HST) to evaluate postoperative sUAS effectiveness after patient acclimatization compared to the generally used polysomnography (PSG) titration, as measured by long-term follow-up outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative cohort analysis.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of consecutive patients at our center who had completed a 6-month follow-up (month 6 [M6]) and recorded data from M6, month 12 (M12), and month 24 (M24). After device activation, we performed an HST with the patient's stimulation settings, and measured the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and device usage. These values were compared to patients who had undergone PSG-based device titration.

RESULTS

Baseline values of the initial 131 patients show high ESS and moderate OSA. At the 2-month time point of the HST, nearly half of the patients (46.2%) reached an AHI ≤15/hr, and approximately a fifth (19.2%) reached <5/hr. The PSG and HST groups differed in median ESS at M24, but no other differences were observed for ESS at M6 and M12. Both groups showed similar AHI, oxygen desaturation, and usage hours per week.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting therapy by using the HST technique after device activation and acclimatization has clinical and economic advantages. These advantages are contingent on several conditions being met when deviating from the standard device protocol, including precise communication with the referring sleep medicine physicians, especially their role in helping with long-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 131:E1375-E1379, 2021.

Telehealth, Telemedicine, and Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) telehealth management may improve initial and chronic care access, time to diagnosis and treatment, between-visit care, e-communications and e-education, workflows, costs, and therapy outcomes. OSA telehealth options may be used to replace or supplement none, some, or all steps in the evaluation, testing, treatments, and management of OSA. All telehealth steps must adhere to OSA guidelines. OSA telehealth may be adapted for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-CPAP treatments. E-data collection enhances uses for individual and group analytics, phenotyping, testing and treatment selections, high-risk identification and targeted support, and comparative and multispecialty therapy studies.

Long-term follow-up of the German post-market study for upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea

PURPOSE

Upper airway stimulation (UAS) is an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in positive airway pressure (PAP) failure. Most reports have presented short-term data, so long-term safety and efficacy reports are rare. The German post-market study (G-PMS) has followed approximately 60 patients from three implanting centers for several years.

METHODS

Patients with OSA and PAP failure qualified for the G-PMS by the absence of obesity class 2 an AHI between 15 and 65 events/h and absence of complete concentric collapse at the velum during drug-induced sleep endoscopy. Optional 2- and 3-year follow-ups after implantation were collected during routine clinical practice. We measured respiratory parameters such as apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and oxygen desaturation index (ODI) and daytime sleepiness using the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) in a per protocol analysis. Usage was calculated from device-downloaded reports. Device-related complications were documented.

RESULTS

Of the 60 original patients, 41 returned for 2-year follow-up, and 38 for 3 years. About 76% at 2 years and 68% at 3 years met the criterion of therapy success defined as an AHI below 15/h. The median AHI was reduced from 28.6/h (baseline) to 9.0/h (2 years) and 10.0/h (3 years); whereas median ODI decreased from 27.0 to 6.3/h (2 years), and 8.3/h (3 years). Median ESS improved from baseline 13 points to 4 (2 years) and 6 (3 years). Usage was stable at approximately 45 h per week at 2 and 3 years. Serious device-related adverse events were rare, with two-device explantation between 12 to 36 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The German multi-center long-term outcomes compare favorably with previously published studies. Respiratory and sleepiness efficacy outcomes were sustained over 2 and 3 years, with a favorable safety profile, supporting the safety and efficacy of a chronic implantable therapy.