Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »
New to MyHealth?
Manage Your Care From Anywhere.
Access your health information from any device with MyHealth. You can message your clinic, view lab results, schedule an appointment, and pay your bill.
ALREADY HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
NEED MORE DETAILS?
MyHealth for Mobile
Get the iPhone MyHealth app »
Get the Android MyHealth app »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of narcolepsy is based on clinical information, combined with polysomnography (PSG) and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). PSG and the MSLT are moderately reliable at diagnosing narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) but unreliable for diagnosing narcolepsy type 2 (NT2). This is a problem, especially given the increased risk of a false-positive MSLT in the context of circadian misalignment or sleep deprivation, both of which commonly occur in the general population.AIM: We aimed to clarify the accuracy of PSG/MSLT testing in diagnosing NT1 versus controls without sleep disorders. Repeatability and reliability of PSG/MSLT testing and temporal changes in clinical findings of patients with NT1 versus patients with hypersomnolence with normal hypocretin-1 were compared.METHOD: 84 patients with NT1 and 100 patients with non-NT1-hypersomnolence disorders, all with congruent cerebrospinal fluid hypocretin-1 (CSF-hcrt-1) levels, were included. Twenty-five of the 84 NT1 patients and all the hypersomnolence disorder patients underwent a follow-up evaluation consisting of clinical assessment, PSG, and a modified MSLT. An additional 68 controls with no sleep disorders were assessed at baseline.CONCLUSION: Confirming results from previous studies, we found that PSG and our modified MSLT accurately and reliably diagnosed hypocretin-deficient NT1 (accuracy=0.88, reliability=0.80). Patients with NT1 had stable clinical and electrophysiological presentations over time that suggested a stable phenotype. In contrast, the PSG/MSLT results of patients with hypersomnolence, and normal CSF-hcrt-1 had poor reliability (0.32) and low repeatability.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.07.029
View details for PubMedID 37544279