TY - JOUR
T1 - Use of the Clinical Global Impression scale in sleep apnea patients – Results from the ESADA database
AU - ESADA collaborators
AU - Dieltjens, Marijke
AU - Verbraecken, Johan A.
AU - Hedner, Jan
AU - Vanderveken, Olivier M.
AU - Steiropoulos, Paschalis
AU - Kvamme, John A.
AU - Saaresranta, Tarja
AU - Tkacova, Ruzena
AU - Marrone, O.
AU - Dogas, Zoran
AU - Schiza, Sofia
AU - Grote, Ludger
AU - Steiropoulos, P.
AU - Verbraecken, J.
AU - Petiet, E.
AU - Trakada, Georgia
AU - Montserrat, J. M.
AU - Fietze, I.
AU - Penzel, T.
AU - Ludka, Ondrej
AU - Rodenstein, Daniel
AU - Masa, J. F.
AU - Bouloukaki, I.
AU - Schiza, S.
AU - Kent, B.
AU - McNicholas, W. T.
AU - Ryan, S.
AU - Riha, R. L.
AU - Kvamme, J. A.
AU - Schulz, R.
AU - Grote, L.
AU - Hedner, J.
AU - Zou, Ding
AU - Pépin, J. L.
AU - Levy, P.
AU - Bailly, Sebastian
AU - Lavie, Lena
AU - Lavie, Peretz
AU - Hein, H.
AU - Basoglu, O. K.
AU - Tasbakan, M. S.
AU - Varoneckas, G.
AU - Joppa, P.
AU - Tkacova, Ra
AU - Staats, R.
AU - Barbé, F.
AU - Lombardi, C.
AU - Parati, G.
AU - Drummond, Marta
AU - van Zeller, Mafalda
PY - 2019/7
Y1 - 2019/7
N2 - Objective/Background: The Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) reflects the clinician's assessment of the disease impact on patient's global functioning. We assessed predictors of CGI scale rating in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Patients/Methods: Consecutive patients with suspected OSA (n = 7581) were identified in the European Sleep Apnea Database (ESADA). Anthropometrics, comorbidities, apnea severity obtained by polygraphy or polysomnography, and daytime sleepiness [Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)] were assessed. The CGI 7-point scale was completed at the end of the diagnostic process (CGI-severity, ie, CGI-S) and, in a subpopulation, at treatment follow-up (CGI-Improvement). Results: CGI-S was rated mild to moderate in 44% of patients. CGI rating at any given apnea intensity was worse in women than in men (p < 0.01). Patients undergoing polygraphy (n = 5075) were more frequently rated as severely ill compared to those studied with polysomnography (19.0% vs 13.0%, p < 0.001). In patients aged ≤65 years, CGI scoring was generally better than in the elderly despite a similar degree of OSA (eg, ‘normal, not ill’ 24.2% vs 15.3%, p < 0.01, respectively). Independent predictors of CGI rating included age, BMI, AHI, ESS, cardio-metabolic comorbidities, and diagnosis based on polygraphy. CGI-improvement rating (Beta = −0.406, p < 0.01) was superior to sleep apnea severity or ESS-score (Beta = 0.052 and −0.021, p = 0.154 and 0.538 respectively) at baseline for prediction of good CPAP compliance at follow-up. Conclusions: CGI rating is confounded by gender, age class and the type of sleep diagnostic method. As OSA phenotypes differ, CGI may contribute as a clinical tool to reflect the significance of clinical disease.
AB - Objective/Background: The Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) reflects the clinician's assessment of the disease impact on patient's global functioning. We assessed predictors of CGI scale rating in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Patients/Methods: Consecutive patients with suspected OSA (n = 7581) were identified in the European Sleep Apnea Database (ESADA). Anthropometrics, comorbidities, apnea severity obtained by polygraphy or polysomnography, and daytime sleepiness [Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)] were assessed. The CGI 7-point scale was completed at the end of the diagnostic process (CGI-severity, ie, CGI-S) and, in a subpopulation, at treatment follow-up (CGI-Improvement). Results: CGI-S was rated mild to moderate in 44% of patients. CGI rating at any given apnea intensity was worse in women than in men (p < 0.01). Patients undergoing polygraphy (n = 5075) were more frequently rated as severely ill compared to those studied with polysomnography (19.0% vs 13.0%, p < 0.001). In patients aged ≤65 years, CGI scoring was generally better than in the elderly despite a similar degree of OSA (eg, ‘normal, not ill’ 24.2% vs 15.3%, p < 0.01, respectively). Independent predictors of CGI rating included age, BMI, AHI, ESS, cardio-metabolic comorbidities, and diagnosis based on polygraphy. CGI-improvement rating (Beta = −0.406, p < 0.01) was superior to sleep apnea severity or ESS-score (Beta = 0.052 and −0.021, p = 0.154 and 0.538 respectively) at baseline for prediction of good CPAP compliance at follow-up. Conclusions: CGI rating is confounded by gender, age class and the type of sleep diagnostic method. As OSA phenotypes differ, CGI may contribute as a clinical tool to reflect the significance of clinical disease.
KW - Age
KW - Comorbidities
KW - Diagnosis
KW - Disease severity
KW - Gender
KW - Sleep apnea
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058227852&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85058227852&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.sleep.2018.10.028
DO - 10.1016/j.sleep.2018.10.028
M3 - Article
C2 - 30555029
AN - SCOPUS:85058227852
VL - 59
SP - 56
EP - 65
JO - Sleep Medicine
JF - Sleep Medicine
SN - 1389-9457
ER -