4.6 Article

A randomised controlled trial of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on insulin sensitivity in obstructive sleep apnoea

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 138-145

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00047709

Keywords

Insulin sensitivity; nasal continuous positive airway pressure; obstructive sleep apnoea; randomised controlled trial

Funding

  1. The University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong, SAR, China)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) on glucose metabolism have been investigated previously with conflicting results. This study evaluated the impact of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) treatment of OSA on insulin sensitivity. Males with moderate/severe OSA and no significant comorbidity were randomised to a therapeutic or sham nCPAP treatment group for 1 week and then reassessed. Those who received therapeutic nCPAP were further evaluated at 12 weeks. Insulin sensitivity (Kitt) was estimated by the short insulin tolerance test. Other evaluations included blood pressure, metabolic profile, urinary catecholamines and intra-abdominal fat. In total, 61 Chinese subjects were randomised. 31 subjects receiving therapeutic nCPAP showed an increase in Kitt (6.6 +/- 2.9 to 7.6 +/- 3.2 %.min(-1); p=0.017), while the 30 patients on sham CPAP had no significant change, and the changes in Kitt were different between the two groups (p=0.022). At 12 weeks, improvement in Kitt was seen in 20 subjects with BMI >= 25 kg.m(-2) (median (interquartile range) 28.3 (26.6-31.5); p=0.044), but not in the nine subjects with BMI<25 kg.m(-2), or the entire group. The findings indicate that therapeutic nCPAP treatment of OSA for 1 week improved insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic males, and the improvement appeared to be maintained after 12 weeks of treatment in those with moderate obesity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available