两种介入策略对改善COPD和阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者持续气道正压依从性的影响:O2VERLAP研究

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Sergio Martinez, Jamie Sullivan, Cara Pasquale, Bill Clark, Elisha Malanga, Sean Deering, Lin Liu, Carl J Stepnowsky
{"title":"两种介入策略对改善COPD和阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者持续气道正压依从性的影响:O2VERLAP研究","authors":"Sergio Martinez,&nbsp;Jamie Sullivan,&nbsp;Cara Pasquale,&nbsp;Bill Clark,&nbsp;Elisha Malanga,&nbsp;Sean Deering,&nbsp;Lin Liu,&nbsp;Carl J Stepnowsky","doi":"10.15326/jcopdf.2022.0293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep disorder prevalent in >10% of individuals diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first-line therapy for OSA, but many do not use it enough during sleep to effectively manage OSA. The O<sub>2</sub>VERLAP study compared <i>proactive care</i> (PC)-structured web-based peer-coaching education and support intervention versus <i>reactive care</i> (RC)-education and support based on limited scheduled interactions and patient-initiated contacts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were primarily recruited from patient communities (COPD, OSA, and the National Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network [PCORnet]) through electronic methods. Inclusion criteria: ≥40 years old, diagnosis of both COPD and OSA, and currently using CPAP. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the PC or RC group, with outcomes assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks. The primary study outcome was CPAP adherence (hours of use/night) and secondary outcomes were daytime functioning, sleep quality, and daytime sleepiness. Changes in outcomes over time were examined using random effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study enrolled 332 participants of which 294 were randomized. While groups differed significantly in CPAP adherence at baseline (PC: 6.1±3.1, RC: 7.3±2.4 hours/night; <i>P</i><0.001), there were no significant differences in change of primary and secondary outcomes at either 6 or 12 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this group of patients with both COPD and OSA on CPAP therapy, no difference was found between the provision of PC and RC. The study did find unexpectedly high baseline CPAP adherence levels, which suggests that any improvement from the intervention would have been very small and difficult to detect.</p>","PeriodicalId":51340,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation","volume":" ","pages":"394-412"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9448010/pdf/JCOPDF-9-394.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Two Interventional Strategies on Improving Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Adherence in Existing COPD and Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients: The O2VERLAP Study.\",\"authors\":\"Sergio Martinez,&nbsp;Jamie Sullivan,&nbsp;Cara Pasquale,&nbsp;Bill Clark,&nbsp;Elisha Malanga,&nbsp;Sean Deering,&nbsp;Lin Liu,&nbsp;Carl J Stepnowsky\",\"doi\":\"10.15326/jcopdf.2022.0293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep disorder prevalent in >10% of individuals diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first-line therapy for OSA, but many do not use it enough during sleep to effectively manage OSA. The O<sub>2</sub>VERLAP study compared <i>proactive care</i> (PC)-structured web-based peer-coaching education and support intervention versus <i>reactive care</i> (RC)-education and support based on limited scheduled interactions and patient-initiated contacts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were primarily recruited from patient communities (COPD, OSA, and the National Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network [PCORnet]) through electronic methods. Inclusion criteria: ≥40 years old, diagnosis of both COPD and OSA, and currently using CPAP. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the PC or RC group, with outcomes assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks. The primary study outcome was CPAP adherence (hours of use/night) and secondary outcomes were daytime functioning, sleep quality, and daytime sleepiness. Changes in outcomes over time were examined using random effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study enrolled 332 participants of which 294 were randomized. While groups differed significantly in CPAP adherence at baseline (PC: 6.1±3.1, RC: 7.3±2.4 hours/night; <i>P</i><0.001), there were no significant differences in change of primary and secondary outcomes at either 6 or 12 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this group of patients with both COPD and OSA on CPAP therapy, no difference was found between the provision of PC and RC. The study did find unexpectedly high baseline CPAP adherence levels, which suggests that any improvement from the intervention would have been very small and difficult to detect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51340,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"394-412\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9448010/pdf/JCOPDF-9-394.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2022.0293\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2022.0293","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)是一种睡眠障碍,在>10%的慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者中普遍存在。持续气道正压通气(CPAP)是OSA的一线治疗方法,但许多人在睡眠期间使用它不足以有效控制OSA。O2VERLAP研究比较了主动护理(PC)-结构化的基于网络的同伴指导教育和支持干预与被动护理(RC)-基于有限的计划互动和患者主动接触的教育和支持。方法:参与者主要通过电子方法从患者社区(COPD、OSA和国家以患者为中心的结局研究网络[PCORnet])中招募。纳入标准:年龄≥40岁,诊断为COPD和OSA,目前正在使用CPAP。然后将参与者随机分配到PC组或RC组,并在基线和6周和12周评估结果。主要研究结果是CPAP依从性(使用小时数/夜),次要结果是白天功能、睡眠质量和白天嗜睡。使用随机效应模型检查结果随时间的变化。结果:该研究招募了332名参与者,其中294名是随机的。各组在基线时CPAP依从性差异显著(PC: 6.1±3.1,RC: 7.3±2.4小时/晚;结论:在这组COPD和OSA同时接受CPAP治疗的患者中,提供PC和RC没有差异。该研究确实发现了出乎意料的高基线CPAP依从性水平,这表明干预的任何改善都非常小且难以检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Effect of Two Interventional Strategies on Improving Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Adherence in Existing COPD and Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients: The O2VERLAP Study.

Effect of Two Interventional Strategies on Improving Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Adherence in Existing COPD and Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients: The O2VERLAP Study.

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep disorder prevalent in >10% of individuals diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first-line therapy for OSA, but many do not use it enough during sleep to effectively manage OSA. The O2VERLAP study compared proactive care (PC)-structured web-based peer-coaching education and support intervention versus reactive care (RC)-education and support based on limited scheduled interactions and patient-initiated contacts.

Methods: Participants were primarily recruited from patient communities (COPD, OSA, and the National Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network [PCORnet]) through electronic methods. Inclusion criteria: ≥40 years old, diagnosis of both COPD and OSA, and currently using CPAP. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the PC or RC group, with outcomes assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks. The primary study outcome was CPAP adherence (hours of use/night) and secondary outcomes were daytime functioning, sleep quality, and daytime sleepiness. Changes in outcomes over time were examined using random effects models.

Results: The study enrolled 332 participants of which 294 were randomized. While groups differed significantly in CPAP adherence at baseline (PC: 6.1±3.1, RC: 7.3±2.4 hours/night; P<0.001), there were no significant differences in change of primary and secondary outcomes at either 6 or 12 weeks.

Conclusion: In this group of patients with both COPD and OSA on CPAP therapy, no difference was found between the provision of PC and RC. The study did find unexpectedly high baseline CPAP adherence levels, which suggests that any improvement from the intervention would have been very small and difficult to detect.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
45
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信