Remote monitoring contribution to the continuation of CPAP treatment in the long term: which gain and for whom? A cohort analysis.

J-Y Bayle, F Onen, S-H Onen

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

J-Y BayleHomedis Santé, 2 chemin des Ronzières, 69390, Vourles, France. jy.bayle@homedis.fr.

F OnenHôpital Privé de l'Est Lyonnais, 140 rue André Lwoff, Saint-Priest, 69800, France.

S-H OnenHôpital Privé de l'Est Lyonnais, 140 rue André Lwoff, 69800, Saint-Priest, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe impact of remote monitoring (RM) on the likelihood of continuing CPAP therapy in apneic patients remains unknown in the long term and was addressed by a comparative cohort analysis.

methodsThe probability of continuing CPAP (pC-CPAP) was compared by log-rank test between two groups of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: Group A = CPAP initiated without RM between 2015 and 2016 (n = 1806); Group B = CPAP initiated with RM between 2018 and 2019 (n = 3195). CPAP discontinuations were either legitimate (LD) or forced (FD). The impact of gender and age was assessed from the hazard ratio of FDs (Cox model) and propensity coefficient matching.

resultspC-CPAP at 3 years was higher if CPAP began with RM (72.3% with 95% CI = [70.8, 73.9] for group B versus 67.4% with 95% CI = [65.2, 69.6] for group A (log rank = 10,595 ; p = 0.001)). If the LD rate did not change, the risk of FD in group B decreased by 15.3% (p = 0.001), remained lower in men (p = 0.013), decreased in the age groups [31; 40] (p < 0.0001) and [41; 50] (p = 0.001). The class of age with the highest propensity to maintain CPAP was rejuvenated by a decade.

conclusionThese results are consistent with a benefit of RM from CPAP initiation for improving the chances of continuing CPAP in the long term with a generation-dependent gain.

Indexed as

Continuous Positive Airway PressurePatient ComplianceSleep Apnea, ObstructiveAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRemote Patient MonitoringAgeCPAPGenderObstructive sleep apneaRemote monitoring

Identifiers

PMID41420132

DOI10.1007/s11325-025-03558-y

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.