The COVID-19 pandemic and sleep medicine: a look back and a look ahead.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a reminder that global infectious disease outbreaks are not new and they have the potential to cause catastrophic morbidity and mortality, disrupt health care delivery, demand critical decision making in the absence of scientific certainty, interrupt trainee education, inflict economic damage, and cause a spike in demand for health care services that exceeds societal capacity. In this article, we look back at how the sleep medicine community adapted to challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. To mitigate viral transmission perhaps the single most effective and efficient adaptation was the rapid adoption of telemedicine. Many additional strategies were taken up virtually overnight, including more home sleep apnea testing, reconsideration of potential risks of positive airway pressure therapy, a reduction or cessation of laboratory services, and deployment of workers to provide frontline care to infected patients. During some periods, critical shortages in essential personal protective equipment, respiratory assist devices, and even oxygen added to logistical challenges, which were exacerbated by persistent financial threats and insufficient staffing. Through ongoing innovation, resiliency, and adaptability, breakthroughs were made in assigning staff responsibilities and designing workflows, using clinical spaces, obtaining legislative support, and achieving professional society collaboration and guidance so that the missions of providing health care, teaching, and academic pursuits could continue. Here we summarize what we have learned through these critical months and highlight key adaptations that deserve to be embraced as we move forward. CITATION: Khosla S, Beam E, Berneking M, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic and sleep medicine: a look back and a look ahead. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(8):2045-2050.

Assessment of Patient Journey Metrics for Users of a Digital Obstructive Sleep Apnea Program: Single-Arm Feasibility Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of diagnosis and treatment, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remains a vastly underdiagnosed condition; this is partially due to current OSA identification methods and a complex and fragmented diagnostic pathway. OBJECTIVE: This prospective, single-arm, multistate feasibility pilot study aimed to understand the journey in a nonreferred sample of participants through the fully remote OSA screening and diagnostic and treatment pathway, using the Primasun Sleep Apnea Program (formally, Verily Sleep Apnea Program). METHODS: Participants were recruited online from North Carolina and Texas to participate in the study entirely virtually. Eligible participants were invited to schedule a video telemedicine appointment with a board-certified sleep physician who could order a home sleep apnea test (HSAT) to be delivered to the participant's home. The results were interpreted by the sleep physician and communicated to the participant during a second video telemedicine appointment. The participants who were diagnosed with OSA during the study and prescribed a positive airway pressure (PAP) device were instructed to download an app that provides educational and support-related content and access to personalized coaching support during the study's 90-day PAP usage period. Surveys were deployed throughout the study to assess baseline characteristics, prior knowledge of sleep apnea, and satisfaction with the program. RESULTS: For the 157 individuals who were ordered an HSAT, it took a mean of 7.4 (SD 2.6) days and median 7.1 days (IQR 2.0) to receive their HSAT after they completed their first televisit appointment. For the 114 individuals who were diagnosed with OSA, it took a mean of 13.9 (SD 9.6) days and median 11.7 days (IQR 10.1) from receiving their HSAT to being diagnosed with OSA during their follow-up televisit appointment. Overall, the mean and median time from the first televisit appointment to receiving an OSA diagnosis was 21.4 (SD 9.6) days and 18.9 days (IQR 9.2), respectively. For those who were prescribed PAP therapy, it took a mean of 8.1 (SD 9.3) days and median 6.0 days (IQR 4.0) from OSA diagnosis to PAP therapy initiation. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the possibility of a highly efficient, patient-centered pathway for OSA workup and treatment. Such findings support pathways that could increase access to care, reduce loss to follow-up, and reduce health burden and overall cost. The program's ability to efficiently diagnose patients who otherwise may have not been diagnosed with OSA is important, especially during a pandemic, as the United States shifted to remote care models and may sustain this direction. The potential economic and clinical impact of the program's short and efficient journey time and low attrition rate should be further examined in future analyses. Future research also should examine how a fast and positive diagnosis experience impacts success rates for PAP therapy initiation and adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04599803; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04599803.

Sleep Medicine Health-Care Worker Concerns About COVID-19: An Early Pandemic Survey.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has produced numerous safety concerns for sleep medicine patients and health-care workers, especially related to the use of aerosol-generating positive airway pressure devices. Differences between physician and sleep technologist concerns with regard to viral exposure and mitigation strategies may inform protocols to ensure safety and promote patient and health-care worker resilience and retention. METHODS: An anonymous online survey aimed at sleep medicine practitioners was active from April 29, 2020 to May 8, 2020. RESULTS: We obtained 379 responses, including from 75 physicians and 283 technologists. The proportion of all the respondents who were extremely/very concerned about the following: exposing patients (70.8%), exposing technologists (81.7%), and droplet (82.7%) and airborne (81.6%) transmission from CPAP. The proportion of respondents who felt that aerosol precautions were extremely/very important varied by scenario: always needed (45.6%); only with CPAP (25.9%); and needed, despite negative viral testing (67.0%). More technologists versus physicians rated the following as extremely/very important: testing parents for COVID-19 (71.2 vs 47.5%; P = .01), high-efficiency particulate air filters (75.1 vs 61.8%; P = .02), and extremely/very concerned about shared-ventilation systems (65.9 vs 51.5%; shared ventilation P = .041). The respondents in northeastern and western United States were more concerned about the availability of COVID-19 testing than were those in other regions of the United States. Among the total number of respondents, 68.0% expected a ≥ 50% drop in patients willing to have in-laboratory testing, with greatest drops anticipated in northeastern United States. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep health-care workers reported high levels of concern about exposure to COVID-19. Physicians and technologists generally showed high concordance with regard to the need for mitigation strategies, but the respondents differed widely with regard to which strategies were necessary.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sleep medicine practices.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic required sleep centers to consider and implement infection control strategies to mitigate viral transmission to patients and staff. Our aim was to assess measures taken by sleep centers due to the COVID-19 pandemic and plans surrounding reinstatement of sleep services. METHODS: We distributed an anonymous online survey to health care providers in sleep medicine on April 29, 2020. From responders, we identified a subset of unique centers by region and demographic variables. RESULTS: We obtained 379 individual responses, which represented 297 unique centers. A total of 93.6% of unique centers reported stopping all or nearly all sleep testing of at least one type, without significant differences between adult and pediatric labs, geographic region, or surrounding population density. By contrast, a greater proportion of respondents continued home sleep apnea testing services. A total of 60.3% reduced home sleep apnea testing volume by at least 90%, compared to 90.4% that reduced in-laboratory testing by at least 90%. Respondents acknowledged that they implemented a wide variety of mitigation strategies. While no respondents reported virtual visits to be ≥ 25% of clinical visits prior to the pandemic, more than half (51.9%) anticipated maintaining ≥ 25% virtual visits after the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Among surveyed sleep centers, the vast majority reported near-cessation of in-laboratory sleep studies, while a smaller proportion reported reductions in home sleep apnea tests. A large increase in the use of telemedicine was reported, with the majority of respondents expecting the use of telehealth to endure in the future.