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 evidencebased 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.

Study Objectives Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) exhibit heterogeneous heart rate variability (HRV) during wakefulness and sleep. We investigated the influence of OSA severity on HRV parameters during wakefulness in a large international clinical sample. Methods 1247 subjects (426 without OSA and 821 patients with OSA) were enrolled from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium. HRV parameters were calculated during a 5-minute wakefulness period with spontaneous breathing prior to the sleep study, using time-domain, frequency-domain and non-linear methods. Differences in HRV were evaluated among groups using analysis of covariance, controlling for relevant covariates. Results Patients with OSA showed significantly lower time-domain variations and less complexity of heartbeats compared to individuals without OSA. Those with severe OSA had remarkably reduced HRV compared to all other groups. Compared to non-OSA patients, those with severe OSA had lower HRV based on SDNN (adjusted mean: 37.4 vs. 46.2 ms; p<0.0001), RMSSD (21.5 vs. 27.9 ms; p<0.0001), ShanEn (1.83 vs. 2.01; p<0.0001), and Forbword (36.7 vs. 33.0; p=0.0006). While no differences were found in frequency-domain measures overall, among obese patients there was a shift to sympathetic dominance in severe OSA, with a higher LF/HF ratio compared to obese non-OSA patients (0.97 vs. 0.63; p=0.009). Conclusions Time-domain and non-linear HRV measures during wakefulness were associated with OSA severity, with severe patients having remarkably reduced and less complex HRV. Frequency-domain measures show a shift to sympathetic dominance only in obese OSA patients. Thus, HRV during wakefulness could provide additional information about cardiovascular physiology in OSA patients.

No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Requirements regulating pharmaceutical prescriptions can affect physicians' choice of therapy in a clinical setting. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the change in bevacizumab use after the regulatory requirement for patient-specific prescriptions (PSPs) for off-label medications in Ohio. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study retrospectively reviewed the aggregate data from the billing records of patients receiving 1.25-mg injections of bevacizumab, 0.3-or 0.5-mg injections of ranibizumab, or 2.0-mg injections of aflibercept for age-related macular degeneration or diabetic macular edema in a 9-member retinal specialty private practice. The review assessed 4488 intravitreal injections in the 3-month period before (May 1 to July 30, 2012) and 5253 injections in the 3-month period after (May 1 to July 30, 2013) the Ohio Board of Pharmacy's requirement of PSPs for bevacizumab. Relative proportions of the drugs used for intravitreal injections were calculated and frequencies were compared. A Likert scale survey was conducted among the 9 physicians to identify reasons for their change in prescription of bevacizumab. The survey inquired about (1) the burden of PSPs, (2) concern about differences in efficacy, and (3) concern about differences in safety. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Difference in drug use before and after the PSP requirement for bevacizumab and the physicians' reasons for change in their drug use. RESULTS Bevacizumab use decreased from 2752 of 4488 pre-PSP injections (61.3%) to 1503 of 5253 post-PSP injections (28.6%), a change of −32.7% (95% CI, −34.6% to −30.8%; P < .001). Use of 0.5-mg ranibizumab injections increased from 1122 of 4488 pre-PSP injections (25.0%) to 1838 of 5253 post-PSP injections (35.0%), a change of 10.0% (95% CI, 8.2% to 11.8%; P < .001). Use of 0.3-mg ranibizumab injections increased from 0 of 4488 (before US Food and Drug Administration approval) to 429 of 5253 post-PSP injections (8.2%), a change of 8.2% (95% CI, 7.4% to 8.9%; P < .001). Use of aflibercept injections increased from 614 of 4488 pre-PSP injections (13.7%) to 1483 of 5253 post-PSP injections (28.2%), a change of 14.6% (95% CI, 13.0%-16.1%; P < .001). In the survey of the 9 physicians concerning their reasons for decreased use of bevacizumab, 7 (78%) strongly agreed and 1 (11%) agreed that the burden of PSPs changed their choice of drug used for injection. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Use of bevacizumab was reduced by 32.7% 1 year after the regulatory requirement for PSPs for compounded (repackaged) medications. This change seemed to have more association with the requirement for PSPs than with a known change in efficacy or safety concerns. Although this study was based on a single US practice, regulation of repackaged medication for safety concerns should also consider the evaluation of treatment burden, cost, and adherence.