A multisite randomized trial of portable sleep studies and positive airway pressure autotitration versus laboratory-based polysomnography for the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: the HomePAP study

Carol L Rosen; Dennis Auckley; Ruth Benca; Nancy Foldvary-Schaefer; Conrad Iber; Vishesh Kapur; Michael Rueschman; Phyllis Zee; Susan Redline

doi:10.5665/sleep.1870

A multisite randomized trial of portable sleep studies and positive airway pressure autotitration versus laboratory-based polysomnography for the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: the HomePAP study

Sleep. 2012 Jun 1;35(6):757-67. doi: 10.5665/sleep.1870.

Authors

Carol L Rosen¹, Dennis Auckley, Ruth Benca, Nancy Foldvary-Schaefer, Conrad Iber, Vishesh Kapur, Michael Rueschman, Phyllis Zee, Susan Redline

Affiliation

¹ University Hospitals-Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. carol.rosen@case.edu

Abstract

Study objectives: To test the utility of an integrated clinical pathway for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment using portable monitoring devices.

Design: Randomized, open-label, parallel group, unblinded, multicenter clinical trial comparing home-based, unattended portable monitoring for diagnosis and autotitrating CPAP (autoPAP) compared with in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) and CPAP titration.

Setting: Seven American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) accredited sleep centers.

Participants: Consecutive new referrals, age 18 yr or older with high probability of moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 15) identified by clinical algorithm and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score ≥ 12.

Interventions: Home-based level 3 testing followed by 1 wk of autoPAP with a fixed pressure CPAP prescription based on the 90% pressure from autotitration of PAP therapy (autoPAP) device (HOME) compared with attended, in-laboratory studies (LAB).

Measurements: CPAP acceptance, time to treatment, adherence at 1 and 3 mo; changes in ESS, and functional outcomes.

Results: Of 373 participants, approximately one-half in each study arm remained eligible (AHI ≥ 15) to continue in the study. At 3 mo, PAP usage (nightly time at pressure) was 1 hr greater: 4.7 ± 2.1 hr (HOME) compared with 3.7 ± 2.4 hr (LAB). Adherence (percentage of night used ≥ 4 hr) was 12.6% higher: 62.8 ± 29.2% compared with 49.4 ± 36.1% in the HOME versus LAB. Acceptance of PAP therapy, titration pressures, effective titrations, time to treatment, and ESS score change did not differ between arms.

Conclusions: A home-based strategy for diagnosis and treatment compared with in-laboratory PSG was not inferior in terms of acceptance, adherence, time to treatment, and functional improvements.

Trial registration: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT: 00642486.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00642486.

Keywords: OSA; autotitration; diagnosis; portable monitoring; randomized clinical trial.

Publication types

Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure / instrumentation
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure / methods*
Female
Home Care Services
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Compliance
Polysomnography / methods*
Sleep Apnea, Obstructive / diagnosis
Sleep Apnea, Obstructive / therapy*
Treatment Outcome

Associated data

ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT00642486