In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. Daniel Buysse and Dr. Todd Arnedt, both members of the AASM clinical practice guideline committee, to discuss the newly released guidelines on combination treatment for chronic insomnia disorder in adults.

Unlike previous guidelines, this new guidance specifically addresses what happens in real-world clinical practice: patients often request both cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) and pharmacotherapy, or arrive seeking medications while clinicians advocate for behavioral interventions. The guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for navigating these combination treatment scenarios, incorporating patient preferences in ways previous guidelines did not.

The conversation explores the guideline development process, including how committee members were selected and how diverse professional backgrounds enriched the discussion. Dr. Buysse and Dr. Arnedt explain why patient preference wasn't adequately reflected in original practice guidelines and how this updated version addresses that gap.

The first recommendation receives detailed examination: In adults with chronic insomnia, the AASM suggests combination treatment with CBT-I plus medication over medication alone (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). The experts clarify which medications were examined, including whether dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) were included, and explain why evidence certainty is low despite numerous studies. Pharmaceutical sponsorship creates methodological differences—PSG outcomes, fixed time in bed requirements—that complicate interpretation. The high placebo response in insomnia trials adds another layer of complexity.

Critical implementation questions arise: What does "combination therapy" actually mean? Should both treatments start simultaneously, or should one precede the other? Can patients start medications while awaiting CBT-I appointments given typical access delays?

The second recommendation appears paradoxical: The AASM suggests against combination treatment over CBT-I alone, yet recommends combination over medication alone. Dr. Buysse and Dr. Arnedt explain this nuanced position—CBT-I alone remains superior, but for patients who prioritize rapid total sleep time improvement over daytime symptom reduction, combination therapy may be reasonable.

The conversation addresses whether treatment order matters and whether clinical (not just insurance-driven) logic suggests a medication hierarchy—zolpidem before eszopiclone, the role of trazodone, when to consider ramelteon. A crucial question emerges: What about patients who refuse or cannot access CBT-I? How do these guidelines apply when the preferred behavioral treatment is unavailable or unwanted?

Throughout, the experts emphasize that guidelines inform but don't dictate clinical decisions. Patient preferences, values, and individual circumstances must shape treatment plans. The guidelines provide evidence-based frameworks while acknowledging the complexity of real-world insomnia management.

Whether you're treating chronic insomnia, navigating patient requests for medications, addressing CBT-I access barriers, or seeking evidence-based approaches to combination therapy, this episode provides essential guidance.

Join us for this important conversation about balancing behavioral and pharmacological approaches to chronic insomnia in clinical practice.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. Lee Neilson, Assistant Professor of Neurology at the University of Iowa and staff neurologist at the Iowa City VA specializing in movement disorders, to discuss his groundbreaking research examining whether obstructive sleep apnea represents a modifiable risk factor for Parkinson's disease.

Dr. Neilson's ambitious study analyzed records from 13 million patients within the VA system to investigate whether OSA is associated with higher risk of neurodegenerative disorders and whether treating sleep apnea might help delay the onset of dementia. The conversation traces the research design from initial hypothesis through methodology, explaining how he narrowed this massive dataset and defined both OSA diagnosis and Parkinson's disease progression.

Critical methodological details emerge: How was OSA diagnosed—through sleep testing, and using 4% or 3% hypopnea criteria? How did the study differentiate between mild and severe sleep apnea? How was Parkinson's disease identified—through clinical notes, medication records, or longitudinal follow-up? Dr. Neilson clarifies whether the analysis included only PD or extended to other neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's disease.

The core findings receive extensive examination: Did CPAP therapy have a modifying effect on PD risk? After adjusting for confounding factors including BMI, diabetes, depression, and hypersomnia, which variables mattered most? What was the number needed to treat to prevent one case of Parkinson's disease? Could hypoxic burden be examined as a potential mechanism?

Intriguing tangential discussions explore whether idiopathic RBD can be distinguished from trauma-related RBD and whether these represent separate pathological processes. The conversation takes an unexpected turn into the neuroprotective effects of smoking in Parkinson's disease, with Dr. Neilson explaining proposed mechanisms and drawing parallels to ischemic preconditioning that might occur with OSA.

The episode addresses severity gradients—did OSA severity correlate with PD risk? It also tackles a fundamental question: Does treating sleep apnea delay dementia onset or actually prevent it? Dr. Neilson discusses whether non-PAP therapies were examined and addresses a critical ethical concern in sleep apnea research: Is it irresponsible to withhold treatment from symptomatic patients, and did this study focus on non-sleepy individuals or include all OSA patients regardless of symptoms?

This research has profound implications for how sleep medicine practitioners frame the importance of OSA treatment with patients and families. Beyond addressing immediate symptoms like sleepiness, treating sleep apnea may reduce long-term neurodegenerative risk—a compelling motivation for adherence that extends beyond quality of life to disease prevention.

Whether you're counseling patients about the importance of OSA treatment, interested in the sleep-neurodegeneration connection, or seeking evidence-based approaches to discussing long-term benefits of therapy, this episode provides essential insights.

Join us for this important conversation about how the work sleep medicine practitioners do every day may profoundly impact patients' neurological futures.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. David Kent, Associate Professor and Director of Sleep Surgery in the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, to discuss the evolving landscape of hypoglossal nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea treatment.

With the recent FDA clearance of a new hypoglossal nerve stimulator, patients now have three device options available or coming soon. Dr. Kent, whose research explores upper airway neurophysiology and novel OSA treatments, helps clinicians understand the fundamental differences between these devices and how to select the most appropriate option for individual patients. He discloses his past consulting relationship with Inspire and current consulting role with Nyxoah to provide transparent context for the discussion.

The conversation begins with the foundational premise of hypoglossal nerve stimulation and why it effectively treats obstructive sleep apnea. Dr. Kent traces Inspire's evolution since its 2013 FDA approval, explaining the current implantation process and how the technology has advanced over the past decade.

A significant focus is placed on Genio, with Dr. Kent explaining how its design resembles a cochlear implant—breaking down this comparison for pulmonologists and other non-surgical specialists. Critical distinctions emerge: Genio uses bilateral stimulation versus Inspire's unilateral approach, lacks a respiratory sensor, and employs an external rechargeable battery. Dr. Kent clarifies the practical implications of these differences, including how pulse delivery is timed without respiratory synchronization, what external battery charging means for daily use, smartphone Bluetooth connectivity, and MRI compatibility considerations.

The episode tackles important clinical questions: Is bilateral hypoglossal nerve stimulation superior to unilateral stimulation? Does complete concentric collapse (CCC) matter as a contraindication, and if conflicting data exists about CCC exclusion criteria, how should this inform patient selection? Is drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) necessary for all candidates? Dr. Kent discusses how the STAR trial differed from the DREAM trial and how pandemic timing affected patient outcomes and data interpretation.

Looking toward the future, Dr. Kent provides insights into Aura6000, expected to be available in 2027, and discusses his research on ansa cervicalis stimulation as a potential complementary approach, acknowledging that hypoglossal nerve stimulation alone may not be the complete solution for all patients.

A particularly valuable discussion addresses setting realistic patient expectations. Dr. Kent shares his experience with patients who arrive with preconceived notions about Inspire based on marketing or word-of-mouth, requiring significant time to align expectations with reality. He walks through his clinical conversations comparing Inspire versus Genio, helping clinicians develop frameworks for these nuanced discussions.

Whether you're counseling patients about device-based OSA treatment options, trying to distinguish between available technologies, or preparing for the expanding landscape of hypoglossal nerve stimulation, this episode provides essential comparative insights.

Join us for this comprehensive discussion about the past, present, and future of implantable OSA therapy.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes David Messerschmitt, a retired computer and signal processing engineer, and Stuart Crisp, a retired process control engineer and educator, to discuss patient-facing open-source PAP platforms and how informed users leverage detailed data to optimize their sleep apnea treatment.

This episode represents a departure from the typical clinical expert format. After eight seasons focusing on sleep medicine professionals, these engineer-patients reached out to share how platforms like Sleep HQ and OSCAR have transformed their understanding and management of sleep-disordered breathing. Both are power users who have helped thousands of fellow patients navigate complex PAP data, representing a patient empowerment movement that many clinicians may not fully appreciate.

David and Stuart explain what Sleep HQ and OSCAR are, how these platforms differ from standard clinical downloads, and what data visualization capabilities they offer. The platforms integrate multiple data streams—high-resolution flow rate data from PAP device SD cards, pulse oximetry from wearable rings, and sleep architecture from devices like Apple Watch—creating a comprehensive picture that goes far beyond what's typically reviewed in clinic appointments.

The conversation explores sophisticated analysis techniques these informed patients employ: identifying upper airway resistance syndrome through inspiratory flow limitation and heart rate spikes, distinguishing sleep onset versus wake onset events, detecting REM-related apneas, and recognizing positional apnea patterns. Stuart and David discuss "Somnopose," chin tuck events, and what they call "high-level waveform forensics"—detailed signal analysis that reveals subtle breathing pattern abnormalities.

A crucial discussion addresses whether these patient communities represent antagonism toward the medical establishment or an unmet need that sleep medicine should embrace. The guests emphasize their desire for collaboration, not confrontation, and offer insights into how clinicians can better partner with informed, data-driven patients who arrive with detailed self-analysis.

Whether you're encountering patients who bring detailed PAP data to appointments, curious about what these platforms reveal that standard reports don't, or seeking to better collaborate with informed patient communities, this episode provides essential perspectives from the patient side of sleep medicine.

Join us for this unique conversation that bridges the gap between clinical expertise and patient empowerment in sleep apnea management.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. Reena Mehra, professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle, and Dr. Dennis Auckley, professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, to discuss the newly released AASM clinical practice guidelines for evaluating and managing obstructive sleep apnea in hospitalized adults.

The guidelines address a significant gap in inpatient care: how to systematically screen for sleep apnea in hospitalized patients, prioritize high-risk groups, determine when and where to perform testing, and ensure appropriate outpatient follow-up. Dr. Mehra and Dr. Auckley explain the impetus behind developing these guidelines and the PICO question process used to examine existing evidence, acknowledging the challenges of working with limited data in this emerging field.

The conversation systematically walks through the four key recommendations: in-hospital screening for OSA as part of an evaluation and management pathway, use of inpatient PAP treatment for newly diagnosed or untreated moderate-to-severe OSA, availability of sleep medicine consultation, and implementation of discharge management plans to ensure timely diagnosis and effective outpatient management.

Practical implementation receives extensive attention. How should patients be screened—using STOP-Bang or facility-specific methods? Should screening be built into the EMR? Which patient populations and hospital units should be prioritized? Who performs the screening—sleep navigators, nursing staff, or hospitalists? Can sleep consultations be conducted via telemedicine at the bedside? The experts emphasize the critical need for a program champion and comprehensive education initiatives.

Dr. Auckley shares invaluable lessons from his experience creating an inpatient sleep program, discussing what he wishes he'd known before starting and practical insights gained through implementation. A particularly frustrating issue receives attention: patients who bring their own PAP devices to the hospital but never have them set up or used during their stay. The guidelines address this common scenario and provide frameworks for ensuring treated patients continue therapy during hospitalization.

Legal liability considerations are explored: What responsibilities exist for untreated patients diagnosed with OSA during hospitalization? What about high-risk patients who haven't been formally diagnosed? The experts discuss strategies for ensuring outpatient follow-up, recognizing that effective discharge planning is essential for translating inpatient identification into long-term management.

Whether you're considering establishing an inpatient sleep program, frustrated by gaps in hospital-based sleep apnea care, or seeking evidence-based approaches to identifying and managing OSA in hospitalized patients, this episode provides essential guidance and practical implementation strategies.

Join us for this important discussion about bringing systematic sleep apnea evaluation and management into the inpatient setting.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla explores growing concerns about microplastics in human health and what they may mean for patients using positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. She is joined by Dr. Thais Mauad, a pathologist based in São Paulo, Brazil, and Dr. Michel Cahali, an otolaryngologist, whose recent research examines the presence of microplastics and inflammatory mediators in the nasal airway of PAP users and non‑users.

The conversation is framed by alarming findings from recent high‑profile studies showing microplastics in carotid artery plaque and even in the olfactory bulb of the human brain — discoveries that raise important questions about how these particles enter the body and their potential long‑term health effects. Dr. Mauad discusses her work on microplastics in neural tissue and explains how these particles may interact with inflammatory pathways, while Dr. Cahali describes their collaborative research evaluating microplastic deposition in the nasal airway.

A key focus of the discussion is whether PAP therapy itself contributes to microplastic exposure. The guests walk through their study design, control population, and findings, including the reassuring conclusion that PAP users did not demonstrate higher levels of microplastics in the nasal airway compared with controls. They also address important nuances, such as equipment age, material degradation, and how exposure may differ throughout the respiratory tract.

Beyond PAP therapy, the episode expands into a broader conversation about how plastics are manufactured, the role of additives and so‑called “forever chemicals,” and how responsibility for reducing plastic exposure has historically shifted to consumers rather than manufacturers. Drs. Mauad and Cahali reflect on what these findings mean for sleep medicine professionals and discuss practical steps the sleep community can take — from clinical practice to advocacy — to reduce plastic exposure in health care settings.

Whether you’re concerned about the safety of PAP devices, interested in emerging research on microplastics and inflammation, or looking to better understand how environmental exposures intersect with sleep health, this episode provides important scientific context and thoughtful perspective on an issue that extends far beyond the sleep clinic.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. David McCarty, a sleep physician based in Colorado and Chief Medical Officer for REBIS HEALTH, to discuss the unique challenges of diagnosing and treating central sleep apnea at high altitude.

Living and practicing sleep medicine in Colorado has given Dr. McCarty extensive experience managing altitude-related central sleep apnea, a condition that affects many residents and visitors to elevated regions. The conversation begins with fundamental questions: Is central sleep apnea normal at altitude? What physiological mechanisms drive its development? Dr. McCarty explains the prevalence patterns across different elevations, from Denver's mile-high altitude to extreme elevations like 10,000 feet, and whether there's a threshold where everyone develops central events.

Practical diagnostic considerations receive detailed attention: Should patients be tested at their home altitude? How are titration studies conducted in high-altitude settings? What testing equipment best identifies central apneas, and should central hypopneas be scored? Dr. McCarty discusses the high prevalence of treatment-emergent central sleep apnea (TECSA) at altitude and how many patients present with mixed obstructive and central patterns, complicating treatment decisions.

The episode provides essential guidance for clinicians whose patients travel to high altitude destinations. What PAP adjustments should be made? How should EPR (expiratory pressure relief) settings be modified? Dr. McCarty walks through his decision-making framework for when to treat altitude-related central apnea, emphasizing the importance of patient education before ascension.

Treatment options are systematically reviewed: pressure adjustments, the role of BPAP therapy, when to consider ASV, acetazolamide use, and supplemental oxygen. Dr. McCarty discusses whether pre-emptive treatment is appropriate for patients planning high-altitude travel and provides practical protocols for managing both residents who live at altitude and visitors experiencing acute exposure.

The conversation emphasizes patient-centered approaches, considering not just the physiological aspects of altitude-related breathing disturbances but also the practical realities of treating patients in mountain communities and preparing lowland residents for high-altitude adventures.

Whether you practice in elevated regions, have patients who travel to altitude destinations, or simply want to understand the physiology behind altitude-related central sleep apnea, this episode provides essential clinical guidance.

Join us for this informative discussion about a condition that affects millions living at or traveling to high elevations.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. Mark Boulos, Dr. Khullar, and Dr. Mak for an in‑depth discussion on a topic that has challenged clinicians for decades: Are hypnotics safe for patients with untreated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)?

As new therapeutic options emerge and our understanding of comorbid insomnia and sleep apnea (COMISA) evolves, clinicians are increasingly confronted with nuanced decisions about when—and whether—to use hypnotic medications. The guests unpack the latest evidence and share insights from recent studies, including research evaluating dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) such as lemborexant in individuals with sleep apnea.

The conversation begins with a review of hypnotic medication classes and explores which agents may be safer in untreated OSA, and which still raise concerns. The panel discusses a recent lemborexant study, its design, population characteristics (including BMI and OSA severity considerations), and whether industry sponsorship played a role. They clarify that while the study did not focus specifically on COMISA, it sheds light on how DORAs perform in people with sleep apnea—particularly in terms of respiratory metrics.

The experts tackle the practical clinical dilemma of treatment sequencing in COMISA: Should clinicians begin with cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT‑I), initiate PAP therapy, or consider medications first? They walk through what is known about how different hypnotic classes—including z‑drugs, GABAergic agents, trazodone, and DORAs—affect respiratory drive and sleep architecture. The discussion extends to special circumstances such as REM‑related OSA, where increased REM sleep induced by certain medications may have unique implications.

The episode also considers broader emerging questions: Do DORAs improve apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) even without PAP? Can hypnotics be used strategically to improve sleep continuity without worsening respiratory parameters? And will future insomnia care rely on identifying phenotypes that respond differently to GABA‑based medications or wakefulness‑impairment targets?

Throughout the conversation, the guests emphasize evidence-based takeaways, including the central finding that DORAs do not appear to worsen OSA‑related metrics, offering reassurance for clinicians who might consider using a hypnotic in a patien with untreated OSA. .

Whether you regularly see patients with comorbid insomnia and untreated sleep apnea or simply want clarity on the evolving role of hypnotics in this population, this episode offers practical, research-grounded guidance for clinical decision making.

Join us for this important discussion on how hypnotics can be used safely and thoughtfully in patients with untreated OSA.