[News] Washington Post Article - Printable Version +- Apnea Board Forum - CPAP | Sleep Apnea (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums) +-- Forum: Public Area (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Forum-Public-Area) +--- Forum: Main Apnea Board Forum (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Forum-Main-Apnea-Board-Forum) +--- Thread: [News] Washington Post Article (/Thread-News-Washington-Post-Article) |
Washington Post Article - Sleepster - 08-29-2016 This WAPO article has a title that grabbed my interest and challenged my beliefs. But in the fifth paragraph from the end the challenge seems to disappear with this comment: One possibility raised in both the study and an accompanying editorial is that the CPAP group was able to wear the masks only about 3.3 hours per night, a duration that is consistent with CPAP users in the real world. How the heck can 3.3 hours of use per night be expected to do anything other than prolong the agony of a sleep-deprived life! And what real world is it that they're living in? It sure ain't the same one I'm in. Quote:CPAP machines don’t prevent heart attacks, strokes in some sleep apnea sufferers RE: Washington Post Article - richb - 08-29-2016 We have had considerable discussion on the subject of this flawed study referenced in the WA PO article. http://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Thread-No-reduction-in-heart-attacks-for-cpap-users In my opinion the conclusion of the study should have been that "non-compliant use of CPAP is no different than non use of CPAP among cardiac patients." Rich RE: Washington Post Article - Sleepster - 08-29-2016 Thanks. I missed that one! RE: Washington Post Article - theone - 08-29-2016 This sure make you wonder.. RE: Washington Post Article - NorthernGuy - 08-29-2016 I haven't read the scientific article, just the news story, but it seems like weak science. How can the authors call using the CPAP use of ~3.3 hours a night "CPAP treatment" and compare that entire group to untreated? The authors should have only included successfully treated (say AHI <= 5) and >= 4 hours per night usage in the successful CPAP group. The successfully treated CPAP pool should have been compared to untreated known sleep apnea patients for the purpose of a study. Otherwise it is like comparing drugs where one group only takes half of the doses (or less). My guess is that the study pool size was became too small for the statistical power they needed, so they enlarged the pool to all CPAP users (successful or not). If I am missing something, then please speak up and correct me. RE: Washington Post Article - Maskup N. Sleepwell - 09-08-2016 You hit the nail on the head RichB ... "non-compliant use of CPAP is no different than non use of CPAP among cardiac patients." Can't say I'm surprised. RE: Washington Post Article - stephengreene - 09-08-2016 I understand that 3.3 hours of CPAP usage provides no benefit. Does anyone know what is the minimum usage that will provide a benefit? RE: Washington Post Article - richb - 09-08-2016 (09-08-2016, 07:59 PM)stephengreene Wrote: I understand that 3.3 hours of CPAP usage provides no benefit. Does anyone know what is the minimum usage that will provide a benefit? Hi stephengreene. Welcome to the Apnea Board. Most insurance and Medicare require a minimum of 4 hours per night usage to be compliant with treatment. That does not mean that 4 hours is sufficient for reasonable benefit. Going nearly half a nights sleep without therapy could result in frequent O2 desaturations. Why would anyone even want to subject themselves to that. For most of us the goal is to use our machines while we are sleeping. That is when Obstructive and Central Apneas happen. I think that the insurance industry including Medicare picked a number that they can live with when evaluating compliance from new patients. It takes time for new CPAP users to get used to their treatment. Mask and sometimes pressure issues take time to sort out. If I were to design a study it would be with people who use the machine for their entire nights sleep. Given that finding subjects might be difficult I would allow a minimum of 6 hours per night be a mimimum. I would also select people who had been using xPAP for at least 3 months. I would compare that to a non compliant control group and a diagnosed with apnea but untreated group. Rich RE: Washington Post Article - chill - 09-08-2016 Plus, minimum usage will provide minimum benefit. Why bother? It is like asking how seldom you can brush your teeth and still get fewer cavities than if you never brushed at all? I've not seen any research indicating that the 4 hour compliance about is about therapy benefits. As Rich said, they needed to draw a line between people who were not going to use the machines long term and those who probably would. RE: Washington Post Article - stephengreene - 09-08-2016 Thanks for the response. Is there some scientific study that indicates 6 hours will provide benefit? Your answer sounds like a "best guess" but it is unclear that there is medical proof to support this. I am coming up to my annual checkup and would hope the results will show some benefit for my efforts. But unclear how to measure that. |