Effects of Medical Therapy on Mild Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adult Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have been shown to have high levels of inflammatory markers. Anti-inflammatory treatment with montelukast and intranasal steroids have demonstrated efficacy for mild OSA in children; this has not been fully evaluated in adults. This study investigated the response of mild OSA in adults to anti-inflammatory medical therapy. METHODS: Adults aged ≥ 21 years with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≤ 15 events/h on polysomnography (PSG) were recruited to a prospective double-blind, randomized control trial. Patients were treated for 12 weeks with montelukast and fluticasone or placebo. All underwent a pretreatment and posttreatment PSG. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score was obtained pretreatment and at 6 and 12 weeks posttreatment. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients completed the study with 13 in each group. Mean age in the treatment and placebo groups were 58.3 ± 10.3 and 54.8 ± 14 years, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups reporting nasal congestion (P = .186), rhinitis (P = .666), or snoring (P = .177). There was no difference in the pretreatment ESS score (P = .077), body mass index (P = .173), or AHI (P = .535). The posttreatment PSG in the treatment group demonstrated a significant increase in total sleep time (P = .02) and percent of stage R sleep (P = .05). Neither group showed significant change in AHI. In patients in the treatment group, the 6- and 12-week follow-up ESS scores were not significantly different from pretreatment scores (P = .37-.46). CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal steroids and montelukast did not decrease AHI; however, total sleep time and percent of stage R sleep significantly increased. Self-reported improvement could be explained by observed changes in sleep parameters. Larger prospective studies could help elucidate the effects of medical therapy on adult patients with OSA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Title: Montelukast and Nasa ICS for Treatment of Mild Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults; Identifier: NCT01089647; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01089647.

Admission Criteria for Children With Obstructive Sleep Apnea After Adenotonsillectomy: Considerations for Cost.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Postoperative respiratory complications (PRCs) are common among children with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) after adenotonsillectomy. We analyzed postoperative admission guidelines to determine which optimally balanced patient safety and cost. METHODS: Retrospective study of children aged 12 years or younger undergoing adenotonsillectomy for OSA after polysomnography at a tertiary academic care center over 2 years. Demographics, medical History, and hospital course were collected. Advanced Excel modeling was used to assess the number of children with PRCs identified with guideline admission criteria and to validate the significance of these findings in our patient population with logistic regression. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty children were included; 116 had documented PRCs. Children with PRCs were younger (P = .024) and more frequently male (P = .012). There were no significant differences in race (P = .411) or obesity (P = .265). More children with PRCs had an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) > 24 events/h (P < .001). Following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, and Nationwide Children's Hospital, 82%, 87%, and 99% of children with PRCs would be identified, costing $535,962, $647,165, and $1,053,694 for admission, respectively. Using a non-validated, forced model to refine predictors described in published guidelines, our model would have identified 95% of children with one or more PRCs, with a moderate cost. CONCLUSIONS: Current admission guidelines attempt to identify children with OSA at high risk for PRCs after adenotonsillectomy; however, none consider the economic cost to the health care system. We present a comparison of the number of patients identified with PRCs after adenotonsillectomy and the cost of expected admissions using currently published guidelines. COMMENTARY: A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 1371.

Financial incentive of home continuous positive airway pressure machine use in the inpatient hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is increasingly recognized as a significant factor in perioperative and inpatient health. Because of this, hospitalized OSA patients are encouraged to utilize continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy while inpatients. We investigated the cost difference of patient-owned versus hospital-provided CPAP machine use by admitted adult patients with OSA. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study at a tertiary academic center. METHODS: All new-patient admissions >18 years of age who were prescribed CPAP while inpatients over a 2-month period were included. Demographic information was collected, and cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: CPAP was used for 162 (1.2%) admissions. Mean patient age was 59 ± 13 years; the majority were white (56.8%) and male (64.2%). Average CPAP utilization was 5.3 ± 5.5 nights. The differential cost per day for patients using hospital-provided CPAP was $416.10 more than for patients using home CPAP machines. This cost included direct costs of an extended respiratory therapy (RT) initial visit, machine rental fee ($27.50), and additional RT evaluation time (mean, 85-145 relative value units). The base initial visit was the same for all patients. Over the 2-month study period, the total cost difference in charges was $195,912; this extrapolates to $1,175,471 yearly. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to characterize the magnitude of cost savings from utilization of home versus hospital-provided CPAP machines in patients requiring inpatient CPAP machine use. The use of patient-owned CPAP machines may reflect an opportunity to provide cheaper care while maintaining high patient safety and quality care. The actual economic impact to an individual hospital would vary based on the insurance payer mix.