| Author(s), year . | Country . | Study design . | Population . | Functional outcomes . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bijlenga et al., 2021 [170] | The Netherlands | Prospective cohort | • 6 IH | 3 of 6 patients with IH were found to be at an increased risk of impaired driving |
| Dauvilliers et al., 2022 [171] | Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Poland, Spain, USA | Randomized controlled trial | 115 IH: • 56 LSO • 59 placebo | • WPAI:SHP: improvements with LSO vs. placebo on work productivity • FOSQ-10 score significantly improved with LSO. Estimated median difference (95% CI) between LSO and placebo groups in change in FOSQ-10 score from the end of the stable-dose period to the end of the double-blind, randomized withdrawal period: 3.7 (2.5–5.0); p < .0001 |
| Mayer et al., 2015 [69] | Germany | Randomized controlled trial | IH drug-free without long sleep: • 14 placebo • 17 modafinil | 6-point scale of effectiveness/performance: significant improvements with modafinil vs. placebo by week 3: mean difference (95% CI) −0.68 (−1.26, −0.10); p = .033 |
| Ong et al., 2020 [145] | USA | Clinical trial | 12 IH with depression who participated in online CBT | • PROMIS: baseline; post treatment (mean [SD]), both comparisons NS: ◦ Global mental health: 37.74 [4.96]; 37.19 [7.61] ◦ Global physical health: 42.53 [7.92]; 42.13 [4.30] • FOSQ: baseline 2.21 [0.39]; post treatment 2.33 [0.46]; p = 0.2688 |
| Ozaki et al., 2012 [68] | Japan | Prospective cohort | • 54 IH without long sleep time treated for EDS with ≥ 1 year of follow-up • 82 drug-naïve IH historical controls | Sociodemographic variables of treated patients with IH: • Experience of divorce or break up with partner due to symptoms: yes, 13.0%; no, 87.0% • Experience of being forced to relocate or being dismissed due to symptoms: yes, 25.9%; no, 74.1% |
| Philip P et al., 2014 [172] | France | Randomized controlled trial | • 14 IH who crossed over between modafinil and placebo • 13 narcolepsy • 14 healthy controls | Assessment of driving performance in patients with narcolepsy and IH (mean ± SD): • Driving performance for narcolepsy vs. IH, respectively: ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 2.0 ± 0.7 vs. 1.3 ± 0.6; p = NS ◦ SD of lateral position of the vehicle: 25.0 ± 1.1 vs. 23.5 ± 1.0 cm; p = NS • Driving performance for narcolepsy/IH vs. controls, respectively (placebo): ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.2 ± 0.7; p < .05 • Driving performance for narcolepsy/IH vs. controls, respectively (modafinil): ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 1.1 ± 0.2 vs. 0.2 ± 0.7; p < .05 • Driving performance for narcolepsy/patients with IH treated with modafinil vs. placebo, respectively: ◦ SD of lateral position of the vehicle: 23.6 ± 0.6 vs. 24.9 ± 0.9; p = .06 |
| Pizza et al., 2015 [114] | France | Cross-sectional study | • 71 IH • 129 NT1 • 82 NT2 • 470 healthy controls | Risk of a driving accident in the last 5 years in IH: • Vs. healthy controls: ◦ Adjusted for sex, age, marital status, coffee, and energy drink intake: OR (95% CI) 2.04 (1.05–3.95) ◦ Adjusted for previous covariates plus ESS and naps: OR 2.31 (0.94–5.71) • Vs. patients with NT1: ◦ Adjusted for sex, age, civil status, energy drink consumption, and disease duration: OR 1.37 (0.63–3.00) |
| Rassu et al., 2022 [7] | France | Prospective and cross-sectional | • Cross-sectional sample: 166 untreated and 60 treated IH • Longitudinal sample: 77 of the untreated patients who were then treated | Among numbers of patients with available values (n), “significant/very significant” impact of hypersomnolence on driving performance: • Cross-sectional sample; p = .0006 ◦ Untreated (n = 166) 64 (38.55%) ◦ Treated (n = 60) 8 (13.33%) • Longitudinal sample; p < .0001 ◦ Untreated (n = 77) 40 (51.95%) ◦ Treated (n = 77) 20 (25.97%) |
| Trotti et al., 2015 [147] | United States | Randomized controlled trial | • 5 IH with long sleep • 5 IH without long sleep | FOSQ differences between clarithromycin and placebo: • Results from original published study on FOSQ (mean ± SD): ◦ Long sleep: 3.5 ± 3.7 ◦ Without long sleep: 0.3 ± 0.9 • Previously unpublished total SF-36 score reported in the 2021 systematic literature review by Maski et al. [33]: Maski et al. considered improvements “clinically” but not statistically significant: mean (95% CI) 1.9 (−0.5 to 4.3) • Trotti et al., 2021 Cochrane review [35]: using these previously unpublished FOSQ score data from 6 of the 10 patients with IH, no significant difference was found: 0.79 (−3.02, 4.60) |
| Van Schie et al., 2012 [173] | The Netherlands | Prospective cross-sectional | • 42 NT1 • 5 NT2 • 12 OSA • 37 IH without long sleep | SARTaccuracy • No significant difference in error score/225 between NT1, NT2, OSA, and IH groups, respectively: ◦ Median (IQR) 11.1 (6.0–17.4), 10.8 (9.5–21.1), 8.4 (6.1–14.3), and 9.0 (5.9–16.3); p > .64 SART mean RT: • No significant difference in mean RT between NT1, NT2, OSA, and IH groups, respectively: ◦ Mean ± SD: 337 ± 83 ms, 332 ± 74 ms, 366 ± 87 ms, and 359 ± 82 ms; p > .55 • No correlation of SART with MSLT |
| Wasling et al., 2020 [16] | Sweden | Prospective and cross-sectional | • 21 IH • 23 healthy controls | • Procrastination scales: patients with IH scored significantly higher than healthy controls on IPS, but not on PPS or STS • Domains of EQ-5D-5L: no difference from controls in mobility or self-care, but significantly worse on usual activities |
| Author(s), year . | Country . | Study design . | Population . | Functional outcomes . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bijlenga et al., 2021 [170] | The Netherlands | Prospective cohort | • 6 IH | 3 of 6 patients with IH were found to be at an increased risk of impaired driving |
| Dauvilliers et al., 2022 [171] | Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Poland, Spain, USA | Randomized controlled trial | 115 IH: • 56 LSO • 59 placebo | • WPAI:SHP: improvements with LSO vs. placebo on work productivity • FOSQ-10 score significantly improved with LSO. Estimated median difference (95% CI) between LSO and placebo groups in change in FOSQ-10 score from the end of the stable-dose period to the end of the double-blind, randomized withdrawal period: 3.7 (2.5–5.0); p < .0001 |
| Mayer et al., 2015 [69] | Germany | Randomized controlled trial | IH drug-free without long sleep: • 14 placebo • 17 modafinil | 6-point scale of effectiveness/performance: significant improvements with modafinil vs. placebo by week 3: mean difference (95% CI) −0.68 (−1.26, −0.10); p = .033 |
| Ong et al., 2020 [145] | USA | Clinical trial | 12 IH with depression who participated in online CBT | • PROMIS: baseline; post treatment (mean [SD]), both comparisons NS: ◦ Global mental health: 37.74 [4.96]; 37.19 [7.61] ◦ Global physical health: 42.53 [7.92]; 42.13 [4.30] • FOSQ: baseline 2.21 [0.39]; post treatment 2.33 [0.46]; p = 0.2688 |
| Ozaki et al., 2012 [68] | Japan | Prospective cohort | • 54 IH without long sleep time treated for EDS with ≥ 1 year of follow-up • 82 drug-naïve IH historical controls | Sociodemographic variables of treated patients with IH: • Experience of divorce or break up with partner due to symptoms: yes, 13.0%; no, 87.0% • Experience of being forced to relocate or being dismissed due to symptoms: yes, 25.9%; no, 74.1% |
| Philip P et al., 2014 [172] | France | Randomized controlled trial | • 14 IH who crossed over between modafinil and placebo • 13 narcolepsy • 14 healthy controls | Assessment of driving performance in patients with narcolepsy and IH (mean ± SD): • Driving performance for narcolepsy vs. IH, respectively: ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 2.0 ± 0.7 vs. 1.3 ± 0.6; p = NS ◦ SD of lateral position of the vehicle: 25.0 ± 1.1 vs. 23.5 ± 1.0 cm; p = NS • Driving performance for narcolepsy/IH vs. controls, respectively (placebo): ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.2 ± 0.7; p < .05 • Driving performance for narcolepsy/IH vs. controls, respectively (modafinil): ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 1.1 ± 0.2 vs. 0.2 ± 0.7; p < .05 • Driving performance for narcolepsy/patients with IH treated with modafinil vs. placebo, respectively: ◦ SD of lateral position of the vehicle: 23.6 ± 0.6 vs. 24.9 ± 0.9; p = .06 |
| Pizza et al., 2015 [114] | France | Cross-sectional study | • 71 IH • 129 NT1 • 82 NT2 • 470 healthy controls | Risk of a driving accident in the last 5 years in IH: • Vs. healthy controls: ◦ Adjusted for sex, age, marital status, coffee, and energy drink intake: OR (95% CI) 2.04 (1.05–3.95) ◦ Adjusted for previous covariates plus ESS and naps: OR 2.31 (0.94–5.71) • Vs. patients with NT1: ◦ Adjusted for sex, age, civil status, energy drink consumption, and disease duration: OR 1.37 (0.63–3.00) |
| Rassu et al., 2022 [7] | France | Prospective and cross-sectional | • Cross-sectional sample: 166 untreated and 60 treated IH • Longitudinal sample: 77 of the untreated patients who were then treated | Among numbers of patients with available values (n), “significant/very significant” impact of hypersomnolence on driving performance: • Cross-sectional sample; p = .0006 ◦ Untreated (n = 166) 64 (38.55%) ◦ Treated (n = 60) 8 (13.33%) • Longitudinal sample; p < .0001 ◦ Untreated (n = 77) 40 (51.95%) ◦ Treated (n = 77) 20 (25.97%) |
| Trotti et al., 2015 [147] | United States | Randomized controlled trial | • 5 IH with long sleep • 5 IH without long sleep | FOSQ differences between clarithromycin and placebo: • Results from original published study on FOSQ (mean ± SD): ◦ Long sleep: 3.5 ± 3.7 ◦ Without long sleep: 0.3 ± 0.9 • Previously unpublished total SF-36 score reported in the 2021 systematic literature review by Maski et al. [33]: Maski et al. considered improvements “clinically” but not statistically significant: mean (95% CI) 1.9 (−0.5 to 4.3) • Trotti et al., 2021 Cochrane review [35]: using these previously unpublished FOSQ score data from 6 of the 10 patients with IH, no significant difference was found: 0.79 (−3.02, 4.60) |
| Van Schie et al., 2012 [173] | The Netherlands | Prospective cross-sectional | • 42 NT1 • 5 NT2 • 12 OSA • 37 IH without long sleep | SARTaccuracy • No significant difference in error score/225 between NT1, NT2, OSA, and IH groups, respectively: ◦ Median (IQR) 11.1 (6.0–17.4), 10.8 (9.5–21.1), 8.4 (6.1–14.3), and 9.0 (5.9–16.3); p > .64 SART mean RT: • No significant difference in mean RT between NT1, NT2, OSA, and IH groups, respectively: ◦ Mean ± SD: 337 ± 83 ms, 332 ± 74 ms, 366 ± 87 ms, and 359 ± 82 ms; p > .55 • No correlation of SART with MSLT |
| Wasling et al., 2020 [16] | Sweden | Prospective and cross-sectional | • 21 IH • 23 healthy controls | • Procrastination scales: patients with IH scored significantly higher than healthy controls on IPS, but not on PPS or STS • Domains of EQ-5D-5L: no difference from controls in mobility or self-care, but significantly worse on usual activities |
CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy; EDS, excessive daytime sleepiness; EQ-5D, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Questionnaire; ESS, Epworth Sleepiness Scale; FOSQ, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire; IH, idiopathic hypersomnia; IPS, Irrational Procrastination Scale; LSO, lower-sodium oxybate; MSLT, Multiple Sleep Latency Test; NS, not significant; NT1, narcolepsy type 1; NT2, narcolepsy type 2; OR, odds ratio; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; PPS, Pure Procrastination Scale; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; RT, reaction time; SART, Sustained Attention to Response Task; SF-36, Short Form-36; STS, Susceptibility to Temptation Scale; WPAI:SHP, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem.
| Author(s), year . | Country . | Study design . | Population . | Functional outcomes . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bijlenga et al., 2021 [170] | The Netherlands | Prospective cohort | • 6 IH | 3 of 6 patients with IH were found to be at an increased risk of impaired driving |
| Dauvilliers et al., 2022 [171] | Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Poland, Spain, USA | Randomized controlled trial | 115 IH: • 56 LSO • 59 placebo | • WPAI:SHP: improvements with LSO vs. placebo on work productivity • FOSQ-10 score significantly improved with LSO. Estimated median difference (95% CI) between LSO and placebo groups in change in FOSQ-10 score from the end of the stable-dose period to the end of the double-blind, randomized withdrawal period: 3.7 (2.5–5.0); p < .0001 |
| Mayer et al., 2015 [69] | Germany | Randomized controlled trial | IH drug-free without long sleep: • 14 placebo • 17 modafinil | 6-point scale of effectiveness/performance: significant improvements with modafinil vs. placebo by week 3: mean difference (95% CI) −0.68 (−1.26, −0.10); p = .033 |
| Ong et al., 2020 [145] | USA | Clinical trial | 12 IH with depression who participated in online CBT | • PROMIS: baseline; post treatment (mean [SD]), both comparisons NS: ◦ Global mental health: 37.74 [4.96]; 37.19 [7.61] ◦ Global physical health: 42.53 [7.92]; 42.13 [4.30] • FOSQ: baseline 2.21 [0.39]; post treatment 2.33 [0.46]; p = 0.2688 |
| Ozaki et al., 2012 [68] | Japan | Prospective cohort | • 54 IH without long sleep time treated for EDS with ≥ 1 year of follow-up • 82 drug-naïve IH historical controls | Sociodemographic variables of treated patients with IH: • Experience of divorce or break up with partner due to symptoms: yes, 13.0%; no, 87.0% • Experience of being forced to relocate or being dismissed due to symptoms: yes, 25.9%; no, 74.1% |
| Philip P et al., 2014 [172] | France | Randomized controlled trial | • 14 IH who crossed over between modafinil and placebo • 13 narcolepsy • 14 healthy controls | Assessment of driving performance in patients with narcolepsy and IH (mean ± SD): • Driving performance for narcolepsy vs. IH, respectively: ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 2.0 ± 0.7 vs. 1.3 ± 0.6; p = NS ◦ SD of lateral position of the vehicle: 25.0 ± 1.1 vs. 23.5 ± 1.0 cm; p = NS • Driving performance for narcolepsy/IH vs. controls, respectively (placebo): ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.2 ± 0.7; p < .05 • Driving performance for narcolepsy/IH vs. controls, respectively (modafinil): ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 1.1 ± 0.2 vs. 0.2 ± 0.7; p < .05 • Driving performance for narcolepsy/patients with IH treated with modafinil vs. placebo, respectively: ◦ SD of lateral position of the vehicle: 23.6 ± 0.6 vs. 24.9 ± 0.9; p = .06 |
| Pizza et al., 2015 [114] | France | Cross-sectional study | • 71 IH • 129 NT1 • 82 NT2 • 470 healthy controls | Risk of a driving accident in the last 5 years in IH: • Vs. healthy controls: ◦ Adjusted for sex, age, marital status, coffee, and energy drink intake: OR (95% CI) 2.04 (1.05–3.95) ◦ Adjusted for previous covariates plus ESS and naps: OR 2.31 (0.94–5.71) • Vs. patients with NT1: ◦ Adjusted for sex, age, civil status, energy drink consumption, and disease duration: OR 1.37 (0.63–3.00) |
| Rassu et al., 2022 [7] | France | Prospective and cross-sectional | • Cross-sectional sample: 166 untreated and 60 treated IH • Longitudinal sample: 77 of the untreated patients who were then treated | Among numbers of patients with available values (n), “significant/very significant” impact of hypersomnolence on driving performance: • Cross-sectional sample; p = .0006 ◦ Untreated (n = 166) 64 (38.55%) ◦ Treated (n = 60) 8 (13.33%) • Longitudinal sample; p < .0001 ◦ Untreated (n = 77) 40 (51.95%) ◦ Treated (n = 77) 20 (25.97%) |
| Trotti et al., 2015 [147] | United States | Randomized controlled trial | • 5 IH with long sleep • 5 IH without long sleep | FOSQ differences between clarithromycin and placebo: • Results from original published study on FOSQ (mean ± SD): ◦ Long sleep: 3.5 ± 3.7 ◦ Without long sleep: 0.3 ± 0.9 • Previously unpublished total SF-36 score reported in the 2021 systematic literature review by Maski et al. [33]: Maski et al. considered improvements “clinically” but not statistically significant: mean (95% CI) 1.9 (−0.5 to 4.3) • Trotti et al., 2021 Cochrane review [35]: using these previously unpublished FOSQ score data from 6 of the 10 patients with IH, no significant difference was found: 0.79 (−3.02, 4.60) |
| Van Schie et al., 2012 [173] | The Netherlands | Prospective cross-sectional | • 42 NT1 • 5 NT2 • 12 OSA • 37 IH without long sleep | SARTaccuracy • No significant difference in error score/225 between NT1, NT2, OSA, and IH groups, respectively: ◦ Median (IQR) 11.1 (6.0–17.4), 10.8 (9.5–21.1), 8.4 (6.1–14.3), and 9.0 (5.9–16.3); p > .64 SART mean RT: • No significant difference in mean RT between NT1, NT2, OSA, and IH groups, respectively: ◦ Mean ± SD: 337 ± 83 ms, 332 ± 74 ms, 366 ± 87 ms, and 359 ± 82 ms; p > .55 • No correlation of SART with MSLT |
| Wasling et al., 2020 [16] | Sweden | Prospective and cross-sectional | • 21 IH • 23 healthy controls | • Procrastination scales: patients with IH scored significantly higher than healthy controls on IPS, but not on PPS or STS • Domains of EQ-5D-5L: no difference from controls in mobility or self-care, but significantly worse on usual activities |
| Author(s), year . | Country . | Study design . | Population . | Functional outcomes . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bijlenga et al., 2021 [170] | The Netherlands | Prospective cohort | • 6 IH | 3 of 6 patients with IH were found to be at an increased risk of impaired driving |
| Dauvilliers et al., 2022 [171] | Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Poland, Spain, USA | Randomized controlled trial | 115 IH: • 56 LSO • 59 placebo | • WPAI:SHP: improvements with LSO vs. placebo on work productivity • FOSQ-10 score significantly improved with LSO. Estimated median difference (95% CI) between LSO and placebo groups in change in FOSQ-10 score from the end of the stable-dose period to the end of the double-blind, randomized withdrawal period: 3.7 (2.5–5.0); p < .0001 |
| Mayer et al., 2015 [69] | Germany | Randomized controlled trial | IH drug-free without long sleep: • 14 placebo • 17 modafinil | 6-point scale of effectiveness/performance: significant improvements with modafinil vs. placebo by week 3: mean difference (95% CI) −0.68 (−1.26, −0.10); p = .033 |
| Ong et al., 2020 [145] | USA | Clinical trial | 12 IH with depression who participated in online CBT | • PROMIS: baseline; post treatment (mean [SD]), both comparisons NS: ◦ Global mental health: 37.74 [4.96]; 37.19 [7.61] ◦ Global physical health: 42.53 [7.92]; 42.13 [4.30] • FOSQ: baseline 2.21 [0.39]; post treatment 2.33 [0.46]; p = 0.2688 |
| Ozaki et al., 2012 [68] | Japan | Prospective cohort | • 54 IH without long sleep time treated for EDS with ≥ 1 year of follow-up • 82 drug-naïve IH historical controls | Sociodemographic variables of treated patients with IH: • Experience of divorce or break up with partner due to symptoms: yes, 13.0%; no, 87.0% • Experience of being forced to relocate or being dismissed due to symptoms: yes, 25.9%; no, 74.1% |
| Philip P et al., 2014 [172] | France | Randomized controlled trial | • 14 IH who crossed over between modafinil and placebo • 13 narcolepsy • 14 healthy controls | Assessment of driving performance in patients with narcolepsy and IH (mean ± SD): • Driving performance for narcolepsy vs. IH, respectively: ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 2.0 ± 0.7 vs. 1.3 ± 0.6; p = NS ◦ SD of lateral position of the vehicle: 25.0 ± 1.1 vs. 23.5 ± 1.0 cm; p = NS • Driving performance for narcolepsy/IH vs. controls, respectively (placebo): ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.2 ± 0.7; p < .05 • Driving performance for narcolepsy/IH vs. controls, respectively (modafinil): ◦ Inappropriate road line crossings over 230 km: 1.1 ± 0.2 vs. 0.2 ± 0.7; p < .05 • Driving performance for narcolepsy/patients with IH treated with modafinil vs. placebo, respectively: ◦ SD of lateral position of the vehicle: 23.6 ± 0.6 vs. 24.9 ± 0.9; p = .06 |
| Pizza et al., 2015 [114] | France | Cross-sectional study | • 71 IH • 129 NT1 • 82 NT2 • 470 healthy controls | Risk of a driving accident in the last 5 years in IH: • Vs. healthy controls: ◦ Adjusted for sex, age, marital status, coffee, and energy drink intake: OR (95% CI) 2.04 (1.05–3.95) ◦ Adjusted for previous covariates plus ESS and naps: OR 2.31 (0.94–5.71) • Vs. patients with NT1: ◦ Adjusted for sex, age, civil status, energy drink consumption, and disease duration: OR 1.37 (0.63–3.00) |
| Rassu et al., 2022 [7] | France | Prospective and cross-sectional | • Cross-sectional sample: 166 untreated and 60 treated IH • Longitudinal sample: 77 of the untreated patients who were then treated | Among numbers of patients with available values (n), “significant/very significant” impact of hypersomnolence on driving performance: • Cross-sectional sample; p = .0006 ◦ Untreated (n = 166) 64 (38.55%) ◦ Treated (n = 60) 8 (13.33%) • Longitudinal sample; p < .0001 ◦ Untreated (n = 77) 40 (51.95%) ◦ Treated (n = 77) 20 (25.97%) |
| Trotti et al., 2015 [147] | United States | Randomized controlled trial | • 5 IH with long sleep • 5 IH without long sleep | FOSQ differences between clarithromycin and placebo: • Results from original published study on FOSQ (mean ± SD): ◦ Long sleep: 3.5 ± 3.7 ◦ Without long sleep: 0.3 ± 0.9 • Previously unpublished total SF-36 score reported in the 2021 systematic literature review by Maski et al. [33]: Maski et al. considered improvements “clinically” but not statistically significant: mean (95% CI) 1.9 (−0.5 to 4.3) • Trotti et al., 2021 Cochrane review [35]: using these previously unpublished FOSQ score data from 6 of the 10 patients with IH, no significant difference was found: 0.79 (−3.02, 4.60) |
| Van Schie et al., 2012 [173] | The Netherlands | Prospective cross-sectional | • 42 NT1 • 5 NT2 • 12 OSA • 37 IH without long sleep | SARTaccuracy • No significant difference in error score/225 between NT1, NT2, OSA, and IH groups, respectively: ◦ Median (IQR) 11.1 (6.0–17.4), 10.8 (9.5–21.1), 8.4 (6.1–14.3), and 9.0 (5.9–16.3); p > .64 SART mean RT: • No significant difference in mean RT between NT1, NT2, OSA, and IH groups, respectively: ◦ Mean ± SD: 337 ± 83 ms, 332 ± 74 ms, 366 ± 87 ms, and 359 ± 82 ms; p > .55 • No correlation of SART with MSLT |
| Wasling et al., 2020 [16] | Sweden | Prospective and cross-sectional | • 21 IH • 23 healthy controls | • Procrastination scales: patients with IH scored significantly higher than healthy controls on IPS, but not on PPS or STS • Domains of EQ-5D-5L: no difference from controls in mobility or self-care, but significantly worse on usual activities |
CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy; EDS, excessive daytime sleepiness; EQ-5D, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Questionnaire; ESS, Epworth Sleepiness Scale; FOSQ, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire; IH, idiopathic hypersomnia; IPS, Irrational Procrastination Scale; LSO, lower-sodium oxybate; MSLT, Multiple Sleep Latency Test; NS, not significant; NT1, narcolepsy type 1; NT2, narcolepsy type 2; OR, odds ratio; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; PPS, Pure Procrastination Scale; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; RT, reaction time; SART, Sustained Attention to Response Task; SF-36, Short Form-36; STS, Susceptibility to Temptation Scale; WPAI:SHP, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
