• P R Srijithesh, Rajeswari Aghoram, Amit Goel, and Jayaraj Dhanya.
• Department of Neurology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Hosur Road, Bangalore, India.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2019 May 1; 5 (5): CD010990CD010990.

BackgroundThe modalities of therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) include behavioural and lifestyle modifications, positional therapy, oral appliances, surgery and continuous positive airway pressure therapy (CPAP). Though CPAP has proven efficacy in treating OSA, adherence with CPAP therapy is suboptimal. Positional therapy (to keep people sleeping on their side) is less invasive and therefore expected to have better adherence. This review considered the efficacy of positional therapy compared to CPAP as well as positional therapy against no positional therapy. Devices designed for positional therapy include lumbar or abdominal binders, semi-rigid backpacks, full-length pillows, a tennis ball attached to the back of nightwear, and electrical sensors with alarms that indicate change in position.ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy of positional therapy versus CPAP and positional therapy versus inactive control (sham intervention or no positional therapy intervention) in people with OSA.Search MethodsWe identified studies from the Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AHMED and PsycINFO), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP). It also contains results derived from handsearching of respiratory journals and abstract books of major annual meetings. We searched all databases from their inception to September 2018, with no restrictions on language of publication or publication type.Selection CriteriaWe included randomised controlled trials comparing positional therapy with CPAP and positional therapy with inactive control.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo review authors independently selected studies and extracted the data. We used a random-effects model in the meta-analysis to estimate mean differences and confidence intervals. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.Main ResultsWe included eight studies. The studies randomised 323 participants into two types of interventions. The comparison between positional therapy and CPAP included 72 participants, while the comparison between positional therapy and inactive control included 251 participants. Three studies used supine vibration alarm devices, while five studies used physical positioning like specially designed pillows or semirigid backpacks.Positional therapy versus CPAPThe three studies included for this comparison were randomised cross-over trials. Two studies found that there was no difference in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores between CPAP and positional therapy. Two studies showed that CPAP produced a greater reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) with a mean difference (MD) of 6.4 events per hour (95% CI 3.00 to 9.79; low-certainty evidence) compared to positional therapy. Subjective adherence, evaluated in one study, was found to be significantly greater with positional therapy (MD 2.5 hours per night, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.59; moderate-certainty evidence).In terms of secondary outcomes, one study each reported quality-of-life indices and quality-of-sleep indices with no significant difference between the two groups. One study reported cognitive outcomes using multiple parameters and found no difference between the groups. There were insufficient data to comment on other secondary outcomes like respiratory disturbance index (RDI), and frequency and duration of nocturnal desaturation. None of the studies clearly reported adverse effects.Positional therapy versus inactive controlThree studies of positional therapy versus no intervention were randomised cross-over trials, while two studies were parallel-arm studies. Data from two studies showed that positional therapy significantly improved ESS scores (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.89 to -0.29; moderate-certainty evidence). Positional therapy showed a reduction in AHI compared with control (MD -7.38 events per hour, 95% CI -10.06 to -4.7; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adherence. The number of participants who continued to use the device at two months was no different between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; low-certainty evidence). The same study reported adverse effects, the most common being pain in the back and chest, and sleep disturbance but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of device discontinuation (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.5 to 3.03; low-certainty evidence). One study each reported quality-of-life indices and quality-of-sleep indices, with no significant difference between the two groups. One study reported cognitive outcome, and found no difference between the groups. There was insufficient evidence to comment on other secondary outcomes (RDI, frequency and duration of nocturnal desaturation).Authors' ConclusionsThe review found that CPAP has a greater effect on improving AHI compared with positional therapy in positional OSA, while positional therapy was better than inactive control for improving ESS and AHI. Positional therapy may have better adherence than CPAP. There were no significant differences for other clinically relevant outcomes such as quality of life or cognitive function. All the studies were of short duration. We are unable to comment on the long-term effects of the therapies. This is important, as most of the quality-of-life outcomes will be evident only when the therapies are given over a longer period of time. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate.

10 keywords...

hide…