Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in the general population and highly prevalent in patients with cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we review (1) the pathophysiological mechanisms of OSA that may causally contribute to cardiovascular disease; (2) current evidence regarding the association between OSA and hypertension, stroke, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and cardiovascular mortality; and (3) the impact of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes. We emphasize the importance of obesity as a comorbidity of OSA and a confounder in the association between OSA and cardiovascular disease. We also discuss the importance of addressing obesity in patients with OSA, as a strategy to reduce the burden of cardiovascular risk factors in this population. Implications for the approach of patients' OSA in clinical practice and future research directions are discussed.
on behalf of the HAROSA I Study Group * BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in individuals with OSA syndrome persisting despite good adherence to CPAP is a disabling condition. Pitolisant is a selective histamine H3-receptor antagonist with wake-promoting effects.RESEARCH QUESTION: Is pitolisant effective and safe for reducing daytime sleepiness in individuals with moderate to severe OSA adhering to CPAP treatment but experiencing residual EDS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized (3:1), placebo-controlled, parallel-design trial, pitolisant was titrated individually at up to 20 mg/day and taken over 12 weeks. The primary end point was change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score in the intention-totreat population. Key secondary end points were maintenance of wakefulness assessed by the Oxford Sleep Resistance Test, Clinical Global Impressions scale of severity, the patient's global opinion, EuroQoL quality-of-life questionnaire score, Pichot fatigue questionnaire score, and safety.RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four OSA participants (82.8% men; mean age, 53.1 years; mean Apnea Hypopnea Index with CPAP, 4.2/h; baseline ESS score, 14.7) were randomized to pitolisant (n ¼ 183) or placebo (n ¼ 61). ESS significantly decreased with pitolisant compared with placebo (À2.6; 95% CI, -3.9 to À1.4; P < .001), and the rate of responders to therapy (ESS # 10 or change in ESS $ 3) was significantly higher with pitolisant (71.0% vs 54.1%; P ¼ .013). Adverse event occurrence (mainly headache and insomnia) was higher in the pitolisant group compared with the placebo group (47.0% and 32.8%, respectively; P ¼ .03). No cardiovascular or other significant safety concerns were reported.INTERPRETATION: Pitolisant used as adjunct to CPAP therapy for OSA with residual sleepiness despite good CPAP adherence significantly reduced subjective and objective sleepiness and improved participant-reported outcomes and physician-reported disease severity.
Background: The best method for titration of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) syndrome has not yet been established. The 90th or 95th percentiles of the pressure titrated over time by automatic CPAP (A-CPAP) have been recommended as reference for prescribing therapeutic fixed CPAP (F-CPAP). We compared A-CPAP to F-CPAP, which was determined by a common prediction formula. Methods: Forty-five patients who were habituated to F-CPAP underwent titration polysomnography. In a double-blind, randomized order, each patient used an A-CPAP device in the autotitration and in the fixed pressure mode during one half of the night. Apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and pressure profiles were primary outcomes. Bias and precision were additionally assessed for both CPAP modes. Results: No significant differences in various sleep parameters or in subjective sleep quality evaluation were found. The AHI was effectively lowered in both CPAP modes (A-CPAP 7.7 [10.8] events/h versus F-CPAP 5.4 [9.0] events/h, p = 0.061). Comparison of group means showed that F-CPAP closely paralleled mean (Pmean) and median (P50), but not the 95th percentile (P95) pressure, of A-CPAP. While bias was lowest for Pmean and P50, there was a lack of precision in all A-CPAP pressure categories. Conclusions: We confirm that F-CPAP set by prediction formula is not worse in terms of AHI control than A-CPAP. On average, F-CPAP parallels Pmean and P50 but not P95. However, due to imprecise matching, individual F-CPAP values cannot be derived from Pmean or P50.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.