Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of two different modes of positive airway pressure therapy on adherence and efficacy in children.

Sleep Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Journal of clinical sleep medicine: JCSM: official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.83). 01/2012; 8(1):37-42. DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.1656
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the effects of bilevel positive airway pressure with pressure release technology (Bi-Flex) on adherence and efficacy in children and adolescents compared to standard continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.
This was a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. Patients with obstructive sleep apnea were randomized to CPAP or Bi-Flex. Repeat polysomnography was performed on pressure at 3 months. Objective adherence data were obtained at 1 and 3 months.
56 children and adolescents were evaluated. There were no significant differences in the number of nights the device was turned on, or the mean number of minutes used at pressure per night for CPAP vs Bi-Flex (24 ± 6 vs 22 ± 9 nights, and 201 ± 135 vs 185 ± 165 min, respectively, for Month 1). The apnea hypopnea index decreased significantly from 22 ± 21/h to 2 ± 3/h on CPAP (p = 0.005), and 18 ± 15/h to 2 ± 2/h on Bi-Flex (p < 0.0005), but there was no significant difference between groups (p = 0.82 for CPAP vs Bi-Flex). The Epworth Sleepiness Scale decreased from 8 ± 5 to 6 ± 3 on CPAP (p = 0.14), and 10 ± 6 to 5 ± 5 on Bi-Flex (p < 0.0005; p = 0.12 for CPAP vs Bi-Flex).
Both CPAP and Bi-Flex are efficacious in treating children and adolescents with OSAS. However, adherence is suboptimal with both methods. Further research is required to determine ways to improve adherence in the pediatric population.


Available from: Michelle Dimaria, Apr 24, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Objectives: Alternative therapies for childhood obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) are needed as OSAS may persist despite adenotonsillectomy, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) adherence is low. Nasal expiratory positive airway pressure (NEPAP) devices have not been studied in children. We hypothesized that NEPAP would result in polysomnographic improvement. Further, we aimed to determine NEPAP adherence, effects on sleepiness, behavior, and quality of life. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study was performed. CPAP candidates, 8-16 years old, underwent NEPAP and placebo polysomnograms. Subjects with >= 50% reduction in the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) from placebo to NEPAP night or AHI < 5/h on NEPAP night wore NEPAP at home for 30 days. Adherence was assessed by daily phone calls/emails and collecting used devices. Results: Fourteen subjects (age 13.4 +/- 1.9 years, BMI z-scores 2.2 +/- 1 [mean +/- SD]) were studied. There was significant improvement in the obstructive apnea index with NEPAP vs. placebo: 0.6 (0-21.1)/h vs. 4.2 (0-41.9)/h (median [range], p = 0.010) and trends for improvement in other polysomnographic parameters. However, responses were variable, with 3 subjects not improving and 2 worsening. Older children and those with less hypercapnia had a better response. Eight subjects were sent home with devices; one was lost to follow-up, and adherence in the remainder was 83% of nights; these subjects had a significant improvement in sleepiness and quality of life. Conclusions: NEPAP devices are a potential alternative therapy for OSAS in a small subset of children. Due to variability in individual responses, efficacy of NEPAP should be evaluated with polysomnography.
    Journal of clinical sleep medicine: JCSM: official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 01/2014; 10(6):663-9. DOI:10.5664/jcsm.3796 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Sleep Medicine Clinics 06/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jsmc.2014.02.003
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adolescents with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) represent an important but understudied subgroup of long-term continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) users. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify factors related to adherence from the perspective of adolescents and their caregivers. Individual open-ended, semi-structured interviews were conducted with adolescents (n = 21) and caregivers (n = 20). Objective adherence data from the adolescents' CPAP machines during the previous month was obtained. Adolescents with different adherence levels and their caregivers were asked their views on CPAP. Using a modified grounded theory approach, we identified themes and developed theories that explained the adolescents' adherence patterns. Adolescent participants (n = 21) were aged 12-18 years, predominantly male (n = 15), African American (n = 16), users of CPAP for at least one month. Caregivers were mainly mothers (n = 17). Seven adolescents had high use (mean use 381 ± 80 min per night), 7 had low use (mean use 30 ± 24 min per night), and 7 had no use during the month prior to being interviewed. Degree of structure in the home, social reactions, mode of communication among family members, and perception of benefits were issues that played a role in CPAP adherence. Understanding the adolescent and family experience of using CPAP may be key to increasing adolescent CPAP adherence. As a result of our findings, we speculate that health education, peer support groups, and developmentally appropriate individualized support strategies may be important in promoting adherence. Future studies should examine these theories of CPAP adherence. Prashad PS; Marcus CL; Maggs J; Stettler N; Cornaglia MA; Costa P; Puzino K; Xanthopoulos M; Bradford R; Barg FK. Investigating reasons for CPAP adherence in adolescents: a qualitative approach. J Clin Sleep Med 2013;9(12):1303-1313.
    Journal of clinical sleep medicine: JCSM: official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 01/2013; 9(12):1303-13. DOI:10.5664/jcsm.3276 · 2.83 Impact Factor