Letter to the editor concerning "Effects of aerobic exercise and resistance training on obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis" by Lin et al.
Description:We are writing in response to the paper “Effects of aerobic exercise and resistance training on obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Lin et al recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.1 We wish to commend the authors on their endeavors in this systematic review and meta-analysis, while noting some constructive concerns with their analysis and subsequent conclusions. An important distinction made in Lin et al relates to studies that included continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment with an exercise intervention compared to those that treated obstructive sleep apnea with exercise alone. They report that only two studies (Ackel-D’Elia et al and Servantes et al)2,3 of their twelve inclusions had CPAP treatment during the exercise protocol, and these cohorts were analyzed separately from exercise-only studies. However, Lin et al also included data from Karlsen et al4 (who recorded a CPAP-treatment majority during their exercise intervention) but failed to identify or analyze this data in the same fashion as the other two CPAP studies included in the review. Instead, the Karlsen et al cohort is included in subgroup analysis with studies that were specifically segregated based on their non-CPAP inclusion (see published supplemental data). Karlsen et al confirmed that CPAP usage was indeed maintained during the study intervention and follow-up as reported in their original article. Lin et al report in their conclusions that their key finding from the subgroup analysis, related to CPAP and its effect on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), is based on assessment which contains this misidentified data. These conclusions thus should be appraised with caution. It is not our intention to criticize Lin et al but rather to advise that their subgroup analysis has a mixed-CPAP cohort contrary to their claims and objective. It is hoped this input can assist in clarifying their conclusions regarding differences in responsiveness to exercise between CPAP-adherent and CPAP-naïve patients.









