Cited by 174Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and Work-Related FatigueSleep and related disorders

Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Crossover Trial of Modafinil in the Treatment of Residual Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in the Sleep Apnea/Hypopnea Syndrome

KINGSHOTT, RUTH N., VENNELLE, MARJORIE, COLEMAN, EMMA L., ENGLEMAN, HEATHER M., MACKAY, THOMAS W., DOUGLAS, NEIL J.·2001·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Some patients with the sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (SAHS) remain subjectively and objectively sleepy despite using effective continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. The aim of this single center study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the novel wake-promoting medication modafinil in the treatment of CPAP-resistant daytime sleepiness. Thirty sleep apneics receiving effective CPAP therapy (objective use, 6.5 ± 1.1 h/night) received daily single doses of 400 mg modafinil or placebo for 2 wk in a double-blind randomized crossover design. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at the end of both 2-wk treatment periods. Treatment periods were separated by a 1-wk washout. Modafinil had no effect on sleepiness as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale or the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (p > 0.1); however, significant improvements in alertness were found with the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (modafinil 18.3 ± 3.9 min; placebo, 16.6 ± 5.0 min; p < 0.02). No significant treatment-related improvements in cognitive performance or quality of life were found with modafinil (all p > 0.05). There was a significant reduction in CPAP use on modafinil compared to placebo (6.3 ± 1 h/ night; 6.5 ± 1, p = 0.03). This study suggests that modafinil may improve some aspects of alertness in patients with SAHS who remain sleepy during CPAP therapy, but further studies are required to assess the significance of the reduction in CPAP use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/ajrccm.163.4.2005036

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 174

Authors
KINGSHOTT, R. N., VENNELLE, M., COLEMAN, E. L., ENGLEMAN, H. M., MACKAY, T. W., & DOUGLAS, N. J.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2001-03
Volume
163
Issue
4
Pages
918-923
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W1994379541
Cited by
174
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
modafinil, sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome, excessive daytime sleepiness, wake-promoting drugs, alertness, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, multiple sleep latency test, cognitive performance, quality of life
MeSH terms
Modafinil, Administration, Oral, Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Benzhydryl Compounds, Circadian Rhythm, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Disorders of Excessive Somnolence, Male, Middle Aged, Plethysmography, Probability, Reference Values, Severity of Illness Index, Sleep Apnea Syndromes, Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review