Evaluating the User Experience of a Novel Positive Airway Pressure Therapy Device for Treating Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the Home Environment

Abstract

RATIONALE : Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is well accepted. Despite its well documented efficacy, adherence remains an obstacle for optimal patient outcomes. Favorable user experience is predicted to positively impact adherence. Van Ryswyk et al. (2019), concluded that early CPAP adherence can be a predictive value to identify those at highest risk of non-adherence to long-term CPAP therapy. This multi-center, single arm study aims to assess the user experience of a novel PAP device (AirSense 11, ResMed Ltd, Sydney, Australia) in comparison to AirSense 10 (ResMed Ltd, Sydney, Australia) in the home environment. The AirSense 11 device is distinguished by an improved touchscreen user interface and ergonomic design features. METHODS : Surveys were distributed to gather feedback on user experience of AirSense 11 and AirSense 10, over 7 nights in the home environment. Those enrolled were experienced PAP users established on the AirSense 10 device. The study was executed in two key phases;the first in Sydney, Australia and second in San Diego, USA. Ethics approval was obtained for both sites and the study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04744038). A telehealth component was introduced to the US cohort at the initial setup to adhere to COVID-19 mandates. RESULTS : Efficacy data extracted from the device recordings showed no significant difference in parameters of AHI, leak, pressures and usage. Surveys were completed by 108 evaluable study participants. Data could not be combined across both sites for all categories due to changes made in the user interface between Sydney and San Diego. The data obtained from the surveys yielded insights into ease of use, ease of use of the tube, ease of starting therapy, confidence in setting up the device in the home environment, breathing comfort, noise, humidification performance and overall performance (Figure 1). Ratings for ease of starting therapy, breathing comfort, noise and humidification performance were significantly better on AirSense 11. No significance was found in other categories. Continued analysis of the data will provide further insights between AirSense 10 and AirSense 11. CONCLUSION : The results of this analysis indicate that both PAP devices preformed well in the home environment. However AirSense 11 showed superiority in areas such as ease of starting therapy, breathing comfort, noise and humification performance. Improvements to initial user experience may lead to improved short- and long-term compliance. Future studies will utilize telemonitoring capabilities to explore these outcomes. (Table Presented).