Objective/Hypothesis: The ADHERE Registry is a multicenter prospective observational study following outcomes of upper airway stimulation (UAS) therapy in patients who have failed continuous positive airway pressure therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The aim of this registry and purpose of this article were to examine the outcomes of patients receiving UAS for treatment of OSA.Study Design: Cohort Study.Methods: Demographic and sleep study data collection occurred at baseline, implantation visit, post‐titration (6 months), and final visit (12 months). Patient and physician reported outcomes were also collected. Post hoc univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify predictors of therapy response, defined as ≥50% decrease in Apnea‐Hypopnea Index (AHI) and AHI ≤20 at the 12‐month visit.Results: The registry has enrolled 1,017 patients from October 2016 through February 2019. Thus far, 640 patients have completed their 6‐month follow‐up and 382 have completed the 12‐month follow‐up. After 12 months, median AHI was reduced from 32.8 (interquartile range [IQR], 23.6–45.0) to 9.5 (IQR, 4.0–18.5); mean, 35.8 ± 15.4 to 14.2 ± 15.0, P < .0001. Epworth Sleepiness Scale was similarly improved from 11.0 (IQR, 7–16) to 7.0 (IQR, 4–11); mean, 11.4 ± 5.6 to 7.2 ± 4.8, P < .0001. Therapy usage was 5.6 ± 2.1 hours per night after 12 months. In a multivariate model, only female sex and lower baseline body mass index remained as significant predictors of therapy response.Conclusions: Across a multi‐institutional study, UAS therapy continues to show significant improvement in subjective and objective OSA outcomes. This analysis shows that the therapy effect is durable and adherence is high.Level of Evidence: 2Laryngoscope, 130:1333–1338, 2020

Background: Several single-arm prospective studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of upper airway stimulation (UAS) for obstructive sleep apnea. There is limited evidence from randomized, controlled trials of the therapy benefit in terms of OSA burden and its symptoms. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial to examine the effect of therapeutic stimulation (Stim) versus sham stimulation (Sham) on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). We also examined the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) on sleep architecture. We analyzed crossover outcome measures after two weeks using repeated measures models controlling for treatment order. Results: The study randomized 89 participants 1:1 to Stim (45) versus Sham (44). After one week, the AHI response rate was 76.7% with Stim and 29.5% with Sham, a difference of 47.2% (95% CI: 24.4 to 64.9, p < 0.001) between the two groups. Similarly, ESS was 7.5 ± 4.9 with Stim and 12.0 ± 4.3 with Sham, with a significant difference of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.1 to 6.1) between the two groups. The crossover phase showed no carryover effect. Among 86 participants who completed both phases, the treatment difference between Stim vs. Sham for AHI was −15.5 (95% CI −18.3 to −12.8), for ESS it was −3.3 (95% CI −4.4 to −2.2), and for FOSQ it was 2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). UAS effectively treated both REM and NREM sleep disordered breathing. Conclusions: In comparison with sham stimulation, therapeutic UAS reduced OSA severity, sleepiness symptoms, and improved quality of life among participants with moderate-to-severe OSA.