Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS) have long been considered predominantly male-related conditions. The clinical presentation of sleep disordered breathing in females differs from males and can vary with age and physiological status,e.g.menopause and pregnancy. Overall, females appear to be more symptomatic, with lower apnoea–hypopnoea index scores compared to males. Furthermore, they appear to have more prolonged partial upper airway obstruction, and may report insomnia as a symptom of OSAHS more frequently. As a consequence of these differences in clinical presentation, females with sleep disordered breathing are often underdiagnosed and undertreated compared to males. This review is aimed at discussing the epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology and hormonal and metabolic differences in females who present with OSA/OSAHS in comparison to males.

Epidemiological studies have revealed a high prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing in the community (up to 20%). A subset of these patients has concurrent symptoms of excessive daytime sleepiness attributable to their nocturnal breathing disorder and is classified as having obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome (4–5% of the middle-aged population). There is strong evidence for an association of sleep apnoea with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity, as well as adverse public health consequences. Treatment and diagnosis have remained largely unchanged over the past 25 yrs. In moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome, treatment with continuous positive airway pressure has been shown to be effective. Questions remain as to how to screen patients with sleep-disordered breathing. Should time-consuming diagnostic procedures with high sensitivity and specificity be employed, or should simpler methods be applied for screening populations at risk,e.g.in the primary care sector?

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a major challenge for physicians and healthcare systems throughout the world. The high prevalence and the impact on daily life of OSA oblige clinicians to offer effective and acceptable treatment options. However, recent evidence has raised questions about the benefits of positive airway pressure therapy in ameliorating comorbidities.An international expert group considered the current state of knowledge based on the most relevant publications in the previous 5 years, discussed the current challenges in the field, and proposed topics for future research on epidemiology, phenotyping, underlying mechanisms, prognostic implications and optimal treatment of patients with OSA.The group concluded that a revision to the diagnostic criteria for OSA is required to include factors that reflect different clinical and pathophysiological phenotypes and relevant comorbidities (e.g.nondipping nocturnal blood pressure). Furthermore, current severity thresholds require revision to reflect factors such as the disparity in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) between polysomnography and sleep studies that do not include sleep stage measurements, in addition to the poor correlation between AHI and daytime symptoms such as sleepiness. Management decisions should be linked to the underlying phenotype and consider outcomes beyond AHI.

The therapeutic and economic benefits of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) syndrome have been established in middle-aged people; however, the benefits in older people are unknown. This trial was designed to address this evidence gap. This 12-month, multicentre, randomised trial enrolled patients across 14 National Health Service sleep centres in the UK. Consecutive patients aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed OSA syndrome were eligible to join the trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into parallel groups to receive either CPAP with best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone for 12 months. Randomisation was done by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit with computer-generated randomisation. The main investigator at each centre was masked to the trial randomisation. Coprimary endpoints were Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) at 3 months and cost-effectiveness over the 12-month trial period. Secondary outcomes were subjective sleepiness at 12 months, plus objective sleepiness, quality of life, mood, functionality, nocturia, mobility, accidents, cognitive function, and cardiovascular risk factors and events at 3 months and 12 months. The analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN90464927. Between Feb 24, 2010, and May 30, 2012, 278 patients were randomly assigned to the trial, of whom 231 (83%) completed the trial. 140 patients were allocated to and received CPAP plus BSC and 138 were allocated to and received BSC only. CPAP reduced ESS by 2·1 points (95% CI -3·0 to -1·3; p<0·0001) at 3 months for 124 (89%) of 140 patients compared with 124 (90%) of 138 patients given BSC, and by 2·0 points (-2·8 to -1·2; p<0·0001) at 12 months for 116 patients compared with 122 patients given BSC. The effect was greater in patients with higher CPAP usage or higher baseline ESS. Quality-adjusted life-years were similar between the groups (treatment effect 0·01 (95% CI -0·03 to 0·04; p=0·787) and health-care costs were marginally reduced with CPAP (-£35, -390 to 321; p=0·847). CPAP improved objective sleepiness (p=0·024), mobility (p=0·029), total cholesterol (p=0·048), and LDL cholesterol (p=0·042) at 3 months, but these were not sustained at 12 months. Measures of mood, functionality, nocturia, accidents, cognitive function, and cardiovascular events remained unchanged. Systolic blood pressure fell in the BSC group. 37 serious adverse events occurred in the CPAP group, and 22 in BSC group; all were independently classified as being unrelated to the trial and no significant harm was attributed to CPAP use. In older people with OSA syndrome, CPAP reduces sleepiness and is marginally more cost effective over 12 months than is BSC alone. On the basis of these results, we recommend that CPAP treatment should be offered routinely to older patients with OSA syndrome. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment, NIHR Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit at the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust and Imperial College London.

This article is aimed at addressing the current state-of-the-art in epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures and treatment options for appropriate management of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in cardiovascular (in particular hypertensive) patients, as well as for the management of cardiovascular diseases (in particular arterial hypertension) in OSA patients. The present document is the result of work performed by a panel of experts participating in the European Union COST (Cooperation in Scientific and Technological research) Action B26 on OSA, with the endorsement of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Hypertension. In particular, these recommendations are aimed at reminding cardiovascular experts to consider the occurrence of sleep-related breathing disorders in patients with high blood pressure. They are also aimed at reminding respiration experts to consider the occurrence of hypertension in patients with respiratory problems at night.