Aims:

To review the experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and service users on the provision and receipt of home enteral nutrition (HEN) in primary care settings, respectively.

Backgrounds:

HEN supports the nutritional needs of service users in primary care settings who are unable to meet their nutritional requirements through oral intake alone. While HEN supports service users to remain in their home, the provision of HEN services can be variable. The prevalence of HEN is increasing as health systems shift delivery of care from acute to primary care settings, and therefore the evolving needs of HCPs and service users in relation to HEN deserve exploration.

Methods:

Quantitative and qualitative studies were included if they described (1) practices that support best outcomes in adults on HEN and residing in their own homes and/or (2) service user and HCP experiences of HEN. Studies on the economics of HEN were included. Databases searched included MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Publications up to March 2021 were included. A descriptive analytical approach was used to summarise the findings.

Findings:

Key themes included the importance of initial education to enable service users to adapt to HEN and the need for support from knowledgeable HCPs. Access to support from HCPs in primary care was limited, and some HCPs felt their knowledge of HEN was inadequate. Service users highlighted the significant impact of HEN on daily living and emphasised the need for support from a HEN team. HEN services were also associated with reduced hospital admissions, lengths of stay in hospital, and costs of hospitalisation.

Conclusions:

A specialist HEN service can manage enteral nutrition-related complications, reduce unnecessary hospital admissions, and improve quality of care and patient satisfaction. Further education of HCPs is needed on the provision of HEN.

Background: There is a scarcity of published data on the global prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea, a disorder associated with major neurocognitive and cardiovascular sequelae. We used publicly available data and contacted key opinion leaders to estimate the global prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea.

Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase to identify published studies reporting the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea based on objective testing methods. A conversion algorithm was created for studies that did not use the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) 2012 scoring criteria to identify obstructive sleep apnoea, allowing determination of an equivalent apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) for publications that used different criteria. The presence of symptoms was not specifically analysed because of scarce information about symptoms in the reference studies and population data. Prevalence estimates for obstructive sleep apnoea across studies using different diagnostic criteria were standardised with a newly developed algorithm. Countries without obstructive sleep apnoea prevalence data were matched to a similar country with available prevalence data; population similarity was based on the population body-mass index, race, and geographical proximity. The primary outcome was prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea based on AASM 2012 diagnostic criteria in individuals aged 30-69 years (as this age group generally had available data in the published studies and related to information from the UN for all countries).

Findings: Reliable prevalence data for obstructive sleep apnoea were available for 16 countries, from 17 studies. Using AASM 2012 diagnostic criteria and AHI threshold values of five or more events per h and 15 or more events per h, we estimated that 936 million (95% CI 903-970) adults aged 30-69 years (men and women) have mild to severe obstructive sleep apnoea and 425 million (399-450) adults aged 30-69 years have moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnoea globally. The number of affected individuals was highest in China, followed by the USA, Brazil, and India.

Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first study to report global prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea; with almost 1 billion people affected, and with prevalence exceeding 50% in some countries, effective diagnostic and treatment strategies are needed to minimise the negative health impacts and to maximise cost-effectiveness.

Funding: ResMed.

OBJECTIVE: To review systematically the published literature regarding the impact of treatment for OSA on monetized health economic outcomes.

METHODS: Customized structured searches were performed in PubMed, Embase (Embase.
com), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) databases. Reference
lists of eligible studies were also analyzed. Titles and abstracts were examined, and articles
were identified for full-text review. Studies that met inclusion criteria were evaluated in detail,
and study characteristics were extracted using a standardized template. Quantitative characteristics of the studies were summarized, and a qualitative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS: Literature searches identified 2,017 nonredundant abstracts, and 196 full-text articles were selected for review. Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the final synthesis. Seven studies included formal cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses.
Ten studies employed cohort designs, and four studies employed randomized controlled trial
or quasi-experimental designs. Positive airway pressure was the most common treatment
modality, but oral appliances and surgical approaches were also included. The most common
health economic outcomes were health-care use (HCU) and quality-adjusted life years
(QALYs). Follow-ups ranged from 6 weeks to 5 years. Overall, 15 of 18 comparisons found
that treatment of OSA resulted in a positive economic impact. Treatment adherence and OSA
severity were positively associated with cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS: Although study methodologies varied widely, evidence consistently suggested that treatment of OSA was associated with favorable economic outcomes, including QALYs, within accepted ranges of cost-effectiveness, reduced HCU, and reduced monetized costs.