4.0 Article

The Challenge of Undiagnosed Sleep Apnea in Low-Risk Populations: A Decision Analysis

Journal

MILITARY MEDICINE
Volume 179, Issue 8, Pages 47-54

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00483

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital
  2. Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology
  3. Harvard Catalyst KL2 Medical Research Investigator Fellowship
  4. NIH/NINDS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may contribute to impaired performance among otherwise healthy active duty military personnel. We used decision analysis to evaluate three approaches to identifying and treating OSA in low-risk populations, which may differ from current standard practice for high-risk populations. Methods: We developed a decision tree to compare two simple strategies for diagnosis and management of sleep apnea in a low-risk population. In one strategy, a simple screening inventory was followed by conventional laboratory polysomnography (split-night), whereas the alternative strategy involved performing home testing in all individuals. This allowed us to weigh the costs associated with large-scale diagnostic approaches against the costs of untreated OSA in a small fraction of the population. Results: We found that the home testing approach was less expensive than the screen-then-test approach across a broad range of other important parameters, including the annual performance cost associated with untreated OSA, the prevalence of OSA, and the duration of active duty. Conclusions: Assuming even modest annual performance costs associated with untreated OSA, a population strategy involving large-scale home testing is less expensive than a screening inventory approach. These results may inform either targeted or large-scale investigation of undiagnosed OSA in low-risk populations such as active duty military.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available