ReviewCureus2026
De-escalating Therapy in Obstructive Sleep Apnoea After Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist-Induced Weight Loss: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incretin-based therapies now achieve weight reduction of a magnitude previously attainable only through bariatric surgery and have demonstrated substantial reductions in the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) in adults with obesity-related obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Sleep services are consequently managing growing numbers of patients who undergo rapid, substantial weight loss while established on positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy, and who ask whether that therapy can be stopped. No guideline addresses this question. This narrative review synthesises three literatures that have developed largely in isolation: the relationship between weight change and OSA severity, the efficacy data for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dual incretin agonists in OSA, and the experimental PAP withdrawal literature. Across randomised trials and meta-analyses, there is consistent agreement that incretin therapy reduces AHI, body weight and blood pressure, with effect magnitude varying by agent, dose and baseline adiposity. There is, however, material disagreement on three questions directly relevant to de-escalation: whether the effect is wholly weight-mediated, whether AHI reduction translates into reduction in cardiovascular risk, and what proportion of patients achieve genuine disease remission as opposed to severity reduction. Approximately half of participants in the largest trial did not reach a severity threshold at which PAP would ordinarily be considered unnecessary, and withdrawal studies demonstrate recurrence of obstructive events and adverse haemodynamic change within days of stopping therapy. This review proposes a structured, reversible and documented framework for reassessment rather than ad hoc discontinuation and identifies the evidence gaps that must be closed before de-escalation can be considered evidence-based practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.