Cited by 899Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

Treatment of Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea with Positive Airway Pressure: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline

Open access
Patil, Susheel P., Ayappa, Indu A., Caples, Sean M., Kimoff, R. John, Patel, Sanjay R., Harrod, Christopher G.·2019·Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine

Abstract

Introduction This guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults and is intended for use in conjunction with other American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) guidelines in the evaluation and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing in adults.Methods The AASM commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence. The task force developed recommendations and assigned strengths based on the quality of evidence, the balance of clinically significant benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, the task force adopted recommendations from prior guidelines as "good practice statements" that establish the basis for appropriate and effective treatment of OSA. The AASM Board of Directors approved the final recommendations.Good practice statements The following good practice statements are based on expert consensus, and their implementation is necessary for appropriate and effective management of patients with OSA treated with positive airway pressure: (1) Treatment of OSA with PAP therapy should be based on a diagnosis of OSA established using objective sleep apnea testing. (2) Adequate follow-up, including troubleshooting and monitoring of objective efficacy and usage data to ensure adequate treatment and adherence, should occur following PAP therapy initiation and during treatment of OSA.Recommendations The following recommendations are intended as a guide for clinicians using PAP to treat OSA in adults. A STRONG (ie, "We recommend…") recommendation is one that clinicians should follow under most circumstances. A CONDITIONAL recommendation (ie, "We suggest…") reflects a lower degree of certainty regarding the outcome and appropriateness of the patient-care strategy for all patients. The ultimate judgment regarding any specific care must be made by the treating clinician and the patient, taking into consideration the individual circumstances of the patient, available treatment options, and resources. (1) We recommend that clinicians use PAP, compared to no therapy, to treat OSA in adults with excessive sleepiness. (STRONG) (2) We suggest that clinicians use PAP, compared to no therapy, to treat OSA in adults with impaired sleep-related quality of life. (CONDITIONAL) (3) We suggest that clinicians use PAP, compared to no therapy, to treat OSA in adults with comorbid hypertension. (CONDITIONAL) (4) We recommend that PAP therapy be initiated using either APAP at home or in-laboratory PAP titration in adults with OSA and no significant comorbidities. (STRONG) (5) We recommend that clinicians use either CPAP or APAP for ongoing treatment of OSA in adults. (STRONG) (6) We suggest that clinicians use CPAP or APAP over BPAP in the routine treatment of OSA in adults. (CONDITIONAL) (7) We recommend that educational interventions be given with initiation of PAP therapy in adults with OSA. (STRONG) (8) We suggest that behavioral and/or troubleshooting interventions be given during the initial period of PAP therapy in adults with OSA. (CONDITIONAL) (9) We suggest that clinicians use telemonitoring-guided interventions during the initial period of PAP therapy in adults with OSA. (CONDITIONAL).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5664/jcsm.7640

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Data were insufficient to analyze differences in quality of life or interface-associated side effects.

    “Data were insufficient to perform analyses examining differences in QOL or interface-associated side effects.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Mask Selection section (page unavailable) reports analyses of both outcomes: studies found no clinically significant QOL difference between intranasal and nasal interfaces, and fewer side effects with nasal than with oronasal or oral interfaces. It therefore contradicts the claim that data were insufficient to analyze QOL or interface-associated side effects. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The effect of CPAP on blood pressure appears sustained over time with continued use, and some evidence suggests fixed CPAP devices may be better at decreasing blood pressure than auto-titrating devices, although better-tolerated APAP may be used for longer durations.

    “The effect on BP appears to be sustained over time with continued use of CPAP and some evidence suggests that fixed CPAP devices may be better at decreasing BP than auto-titrating devices (APAP), although better tolerated APAP may be used for longer durations.39”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Current guidelines for the treatment of OSA typically take into account several factors including the AHI, presence or absence of symptoms, and associated comorbidities.

    “Current guidelines for the treatment of OSA typically take into account several factors including the AHI, presence or absence of symptoms, and associated comorbidities.39”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

    The PAP Therapy recommendations (page unavailable in our copy) consider symptoms such as excessive sleepiness and impaired sleep-related quality of life; the hypertension recommendation considers a comorbidity. The guideline does not establish AHI-based treatment recommendations: its discussion of hypertension says the evidence did not permit recommendations specific to OSA severity. Thus the cited guideline supports some, but not all, of the factors listed. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A systematic review by Patil et al. demonstrated that CPAP produces a clinically significant reduction in obstructive sleep apnea severity, evidenced by complete or near resolution of the apnea-hypopnea index.

    “An SR by Patil et al.39 demonstrated a clinically significant reduction in disease severity as evidenced by complete resolution or near resolution of the AHI”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Methods section (page unavailable) says this guideline draws on a systematic review of PAP treatment, and Recommendation 5 supports CPAP for ongoing treatment of adult OSA. But the cited paper is a clinical practice guideline that identifies the systematic review as a separate companion paper; our copy does not report complete or near-complete resolution of AHI with CPAP. Searches for AHI and residual OSA did not establish that specific outcome. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The same systematic review found that CPAP improves subjective sleepiness, with an ESS reduction of 2.4 points based on meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials, and improves ability to maintain wakefulness on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test.

    “improvement in subjective sleepiness (reduction in ESS score of 2.4 points based on metanalysis of 38 RCTs, and ability to maintain wakefulness based on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test [MWT])”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [2]2. Kushida CA, Chediak A, Berry RB, et al. Clinical guidelines for the manual titration of positive airway pressure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med. 2008;4(2):157-171.
  2. [16]16. Aurora RN, Chowdhuri S, Ramar K, et al. The treatment of central sleep apnea syndromes in adults: practice parameters with an evidence-based literature review and meta-analyses. Sleep. 2012;35(1):17-40.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patil, S. P., Ayappa, I. A., Caples, S. M., Kimoff, R. J., Patel, S. R., & Harrod, C. G.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • McGill University Health Centre (CA)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • American Academy of Sleep Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Patil, Susheel P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
Published
2019-02-15
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
335-343
ISSN
  • 1550-9389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9397
OpenAlex
W2912654414
Cited by
881
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 142 · 2025: 153 · 2024: 146 · 2023: 122 · 2022: 112 · 2021: 113 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 23
FWCI
54.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, positive airway pressure, continuous positive airway pressure, paracetamol, medication adherence, excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep-related quality of life, hypertension, treatment follow-up, sleep apnea diagnosis, adults, clinical guidelines, sleep-disordered breathing, treatment response monitoring, patient values and preferences, resource utilization (health care), cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
GRADE Approach, Adult, Humans, Positive-Pressure Respiration, United States, Treatment Outcome, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive

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