Does home sleep testing impair continuous positive airway pressure adherence in @entity1 with XXXX ?

@entity1 @entity1443 @entity27 @entity2786
BACKGROUND: The increasing recognition of @entity27 ( @entity27 ) and demand for polysomnography has created a need for home sleep testing (HST) using unattended diagnostic and titration studies. Although these studies increase access to care and reduce cost, the limited interaction with sleep laboratories may negatively affect positive airway pressure ( @entity2786 ) adherence. We sought to determine the difference in @entity2786 use between HST and traditional in-laboratory studies. METHODS: This observational cohort study included 210 @entity1 with @entity27 classified into three equal groups. Following preestablished guidelines, group 1 underwent unattended, type III home diagnostic and unattended home auto-adjustable @entity2786 ( @entity1443 ) titrations; group 2 underwent in-laboratory, type I diagnostic and continuous @entity2786 titration studies; group 3 underwent type I diagnostic and @entity1443 titration studies. Group 1 was primarily managed and educated in a primary care clinic, whereas groups 2 and 3 received extensive education in an academic sleep medicine center. Objective measures of @entity2786 use during the first 4 to 6 weeks of therapy were compared between groups. RESULTS: Type of study and location of care did not affect @entity2786 adherence. @entity2786 was used for 70%, 73%, and 72% of nights in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = .94). Mean hours of nightly use (4.4    2.0 h, 4.7    1.5 h, and 4.6    1.5 h; P = .98) was also similar. Regular use was observed in 54%, 51%, and 50% of subjects (P = .84). Discontinuation rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: @entity2786 usage did not differ between those undergoing HST vs in-laboratory studies. HST offers a more accessible and cost-effective alternative without compromising therapeutic adherence.
