Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is highly effective in treating sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). However, unlike surgical interventions, this treatment modality relies heavily on patient acceptance and adherence. The current definition of adherence is largely arbitrary and is mainly used by third-party payers to determine CPAP reimbursement but CPAP adherence remains sub-optimal. Strategies to augment adherence, especially early in the course of a CPAP trial, are needed in the management of SDB. An understanding of the basis for observed differences in CPAP and oral appliance (OA) use is necessary in developing these strategies, but to date no single factor has been consistently identified. Consequently, a multidimensional approach using educational, behavioural, technological and potentially pharmacological strategies to target (i) disease characteristics, (ii) patient characteristics including psychosocial factors, (iii) treatment protocols and (iv) technological devices and side effects that may influence adherence, is likely required to augment the complex behaviour of CPAP and OA use. In the near future, we envision a personalized medicine approach to determine the risk of non-adherence and set individualized adherence goals aimed at treating specific symptoms (e.g. excessive daytime sleepiness) and reducing the risk of patient-specific SDB consequences (e.g. atherosclerosis). Resources for interventions to improve adherence such as educational programmes and telemedicine encounters could then be more efficiently allocated.

Purpose

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is underdiagnosed, partially from variable clinical presentations. Emphasis is often placed on Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), a subjective measure of sleepiness, but variable in OSA. We hypothesized that daytime complaints measured with Language of Sleepiness Questionnaire (LOS) in OSA are not being captured by ESS.

Methods

Adults referred to a tertiary sleep clinic undergoing sleep studies completed ESS and LOS questionnaires (20 items with various patient-reported descriptors). LOS was examined in patients who had or did not have OSA without sleepiness based on ESS < 10. Cluster analysis was performed to assess whether or not groups of individuals differed based on classification with or without OSA and with or without ESS-based sleepiness.

Results

Approximately half the study population (n = 185 completed) had OSA. ESS score (mean ± SD) was 9.0 ± 5.4. There was no significant difference in ESS between patients with and without OSA (9.0 ± 5.1 vs 9.1 ± 5.7, p = 0.969). In patients with OSA, females, older patients and white patients were significantly less likely to have an ESS ≥ 10 when compared to patients with an ESS < 10. In patients with an ESS < 10, there were no significant differences in descriptors of sleepiness between patients with and without OSA with the most common descriptors selected being "I lack energy," "I wake up sleepy," "I keep waking up," and "I don't sleep enough."

Conclusions

The ESS failed to discriminate patients with OSA from those without OSA. Despite an ESS < 10, both daytime and sleep complaints using the LOS questionnaire were present in patients with OSA. Asymptomatic OSA may be less common than previously reported.

The existing coverage criteria for home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) do not recognize the diversity of hypoventilation syndromes and advances in technologies. This document summarizes the work of the hypoventilation syndromes Technical Expert Panel working group. The most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: (1) overreliance on arterial blood gases (particularly during sleep); (2) need to perform testing on prescribed oxygen; (3) requiring a sleep study to rule out OSA as the cause of sustained hypoxemia; (4) need for spirometry; (5) need to show bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) without a backup rate failure to qualify for BPAP spontaneous/timed; and (6) qualifying hospitalized patients for home NIV therapy at the time of discharge. Critical evidence support for changes to current policies includes randomized controlled trial evidence and clinical practice guidelines. To decrease morbidity and mortality by achieving timely access to NIV for patients with hypoventilation, particularly those with obesity hypoventilation syndrome, we make the following key suggestions: (1) given the significant technological advances, we advise acceptance of surrogate noninvasive end-tidal and transcutaneous Pco₂ and venous blood gases in lieu of arterial blood gases; (2) not requiring Pco₂ measures while on prescribed oxygen; (3) not requiring a sleep study to avoid delays in care in patients being discharged from the hospital; (4) remove spirometry as a requirement; and (5) not requiring BPAP without a backup rate failure to approve BPAP spontaneous/timed. The overarching goal of the Technical Expert Panel is to establish pathways that improve clinicians' management capability to provide Medicare beneficiaries access to appropriate home NIV therapy. Adoption of these proposed suggestions would result in the right device, for the right type of patient with hypoventilation syndromes, at the right time.

The American Thoracic Society Core Curriculum updates clinicians annually in adult and pediatric pulmonary disease, medical critical care, and sleep medicine, in a 3-4-year recurring cycle of topics. These topics will be presented at the 2020 Virtual Conference. Below is the adult sleep medicine core that includes topics pertinent to sleep-disordered breathing and insomnia.

This document summarizes the work of the COPD Technical Expert Panel working group. For patients with COPD, the most pressing current coverage barriers identified were onerous diagnostic requirements focused on oxygenation (rather than ventilation) and difficulty obtaining bilevel devices with backup rate capabilities. Because of these difficulties, many patients with COPD were instead sometimes prescribed home mechanical ventilators. Critical evidence supports changes to current policies, including randomized controlled trial evidence suggesting a mortality benefit from bilevel positive airway pressure with backup rate and updated clinical practice guidelines from the American Thoracic Society as well as the European Respiratory Society. To achieve optimal access to noninvasive ventilation for patients with COPD, we make the following key recommendations: (1) removal of the need for overnight oximetry testing; (2) the ability to initiate therapy using bilevel devices with backup rate capability; and (3) increased duration of time to meet adherence criteria (ie, a second 90-day trial period) in those patients actively engaged in their care. Clear guidelines based on medical necessity are also included for patients who require initiation of or switch to a home mechanical ventilator. Adoption of these proposed recommendations would result in the right device, for the right type of patient with COPD, at the right time. Finally, we emphasize the need for adequate clinical support during initiation and maintenance of home noninvasive ventilation in such patients.

The existing coverage criteria for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) do not recognize the benefits of early initiation of NIV for those with thoracic restrictive disorders and do not address the unique needs for daytime support as the patients progress to ventilator dependence. This document summarizes the work of the thoracic restrictive disorder Technical Expert Panel working group. The most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: (1) delays in implementing NIV treatment; (2) lack of coverage for many nonprogressive neuromuscular diseases; and (3) lack of clear policy indications for home mechanical ventilation (HMV) support in thoracic restrictive disorders. To best address these issues, we make the following key recommendations: (1) given the need to encourage early initiation of NIV with bilevel positive airway pressure devices, we recommend that symptoms be considered as a reason to initiate therapy even at mildly reduced FVCs; (2) broaden CO₂ measurements to include surrogates such as transcutaneous, end-tidal, or venous blood gas; (3) expand the diagnostic category to include phrenic nerve injuries and disorders of central drive; (4) allow a bilevel positive airway pressure device to be advanced to an HMV when the vital capacity is < 30% or to address severe daytime respiratory symptoms; and (5) provide additional HMV when the patient is ventilator dependent with use > 18 h per day. Adoption of these proposed recommendations would result in the right device, at the right time, for the right type of patients with thoracic restrictive disorders.

The current national coverage determinations (NCDs) for noninvasive ventilation for patients with thoracic restrictive disorders, COPD, and hypoventilation syndromes were formulated in 1998. New original research, updated formal practice guidelines, and current consensus expert opinion have accrued that are in conflict with the existing NCDs. Some inconsistencies in the NCDs have been noted, and the diagnostic and therapeutic technology has also advanced in the last quarter century. Thus, these and related NCDs relevant to bilevel positive airway pressure for the treatment of OSA and central sleep apnea need to be updated to ensure the optimal health of patients with these disorders. To that end, the American College of Chest Physicians organized a multisociety (American Thoracic Society, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and American Association for Respiratory Care) effort to engage experts in the field to: (1) identify current barriers to optimal care; (2) highlight compelling scientific evidence that would justify changes from current policies incorporating best evidence and practice; and (3) propose suggestions that would form the basis for a revised NCD in each of these 5 areas (thoracic restrictive disorders, COPD, hypoventilation syndromes, OSA, and central sleep apnea). The expert panel met during a 2-day virtual summit in October 2020 and subsequently crafted written documents designed to achieve provision of "the right device to the right patient at the right time." These documents have been endorsed by the participating societies following peer review and publication in CHEST and will be used to inform efforts to revise the current NCDs.

This document summarizes the work of the CPAP and bilevel PAP therapy for OSA Technical Expert Panel working group. For positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy, the most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: an insufficient symptom list describing all potential symptoms in patients with mild OSA; the 4 h per night of PAP usage requirement to keep the device; the additional sleep studies requirement to re-qualify for PAP or supplemental oxygen; and the inability to use telehealth visits for follow-up visits. Critical evidence supports changes to current policies and includes: symptom list inadequate to cover all scenarios based on updated clinical practice guidelines; published evidence that 2 h per night of PAP use can result in benefit to quality of life and other metrics; the costs of another sleep study not justified for all nonadherent patients or for supplemental oxygen due to other types of assessment currently available; and the remarkable success and acceptance of telehealth visits. To achieve optimal access for patients on PAP therapy, we make the following key suggestions: removing symptom criteria for mild OSA; reduce continued coverage criteria to > 2 h per night; eliminate the need for a sleep study to re-qualify if nonadherent or for new Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiaries already on and adherent to PAP therapy; allow telehealth visits for documenting benefit and adherence; and allow PAP reports and domiciliary oximetry to qualify for supplemental oxygen with PAP if needed. This paper shares our best vision for bringing the right device to the right patient at the right time.