Talking Sleep

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. Laura Donahue, an assistant professor of sleep medicine at Vanderbilt University with a background in internal medicine and a researcher in sustainable healthcare, to discuss the environmental impact of sleep medicine practice and practical strategies for reducing carbon footprint and medical waste.

Recent environmental challenges—heat waves exacerbating insomnia, wildfires affecting respiratory and sleep health—highlight how climate directly impacts patient wellbeing. But do sleep medicine clinicians have an obligation to reduce their own environmental footprint? Dr. Donahue explores this question, examining the waste generated by sleep testing, PAP therapy, and ongoing supplies.

The conversation begins with foundational concepts: How does climate change impact sleep health? What exactly constitutes medical waste, and how does it differ from carbon footprint? Dr. Donahue explains methods for calculating carbon footprint and how the US healthcare system compares globally. She introduces life cycle analysis—a comprehensive tool for understanding environmental impact across product lifecycles.

Sleep lab waste assessments receive detailed attention. Dr. Donahue walks through how to conduct a waste audit of sleep facilities and why examining both carbon footprint and waste matters, acknowledging that these metrics don't always move directionally. Her research on PAP device waste, conducted with Dr. Morgenthaler, revealed substantial environmental costs associated with standard OSA therapy—findings that prompted examination of alternatives.

Telemedicine emerges as a potential sustainability strategy. Dr. Donahue compares carbon footprints of virtual versus in-person sleep consultations, exploring how practice model choices affect environmental impact. However, the analysis doesn't focus solely on PAP therapy—hypoglossal nerve stimulators and other non-PAP treatment options receive consideration as alternatives with potentially different environmental profiles.

SHAPE, an organization dedicated to helping healthcare providers examine their carbon footprint and waste generation, receives discussion. Dr. Donahue explains SHAPE's mission and practical resources available to sleep medicine programs. She provides concrete guidance on reducing environmental impact: waste audits, supply chain evaluation, and transitioning to circular economy models where possible.

A particularly relevant discussion addresses plastic waste from CPAP devices and consumable supplies. Dr. Donahue explains how waste audits serve as the first step toward identifying reduction opportunities and discusses strategies for minimizing single-use plastics in sleep medicine practice.

The episode acknowledges that sustainability requires institutional commitment and individual awareness. Dr. Donahue emphasizes that small changes—from supply selection to practice model design—accumulate to meaningful environmental impact.

Whether you're interested in sustainable healthcare, concerned about medical waste, seeking to reduce your sleep practice's carbon footprint, or wanting to better understand climate impacts on sleep health, this episode provides practical guidance and evidence-based approaches.

Join us for this important conversation about environmental responsibility in sleep medicine practice.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. Karin Johnson, Professor of Neurology at UMass Chan School of Medicine–Baystate and expert on circadian rhythm policy, to discuss two competing legislative bills addressing permanent time change in the United States.

Two bills currently before Congress present starkly different solutions: the Sunshine Protection Act for permanent daylight saving time and the Sunshine for Our Kids Act for permanent standard time. Both campaigns use compelling language that makes their position sound obvious, complicating decisions for policymakers and clinicians alike.

Dr. Johnson reviews the AASM's official position on daylight saving time and what research reveals about time change effects—both short-term consequences of bi-annual clock transitions and long-term health impacts of permanent DST, particularly on adolescent mental health and circadian rhythm disruption. She explains what happened during the 1974 experiment with year-round daylight saving time and why that experience remains relevant today.

The conversation details both the Sunshine Protection Act and the Sunshine for Our Kids Act, including their legislative progress and specific provisions. Dr. Johnson clarifies which approach sleep medicine clinicians support and provides practical guidance on advocacy.

An intriguing discussion explores a proposed compromise to move clocks by 30 minutes and leave them there—why didn't this gain traction? Dr. Johnson also reveals how industry influence shapes policy, discussing candy companies' historical support for daylight saving time and other commercial interests that complicate what should be a health-based decision.

Dr. Johnson emphasizes that permanent standard time better aligns with human circadian biology, particularly for adolescents whose naturally delayed circadian rhythms suffer under permanent DST.

Whether you're seeking to understand these competing bills, advocate for science-based policy, or interested in how medical evidence influences legislation, this episode provides clarity on a complex issue with direct health implications.

Join us for this important conversation about how sleep medicine can influence public health policy.

In this special live episode recorded from the SLEEP 2026 annual meeting in Baltimore, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. Sanjay Patel, director of the clinical sleep program at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, to discuss groundbreaking medications for sleep disorders poised for FDA approval in 2026 and 2027.

The pharmaceutical landscape for sleep medicine is undergoing unprecedented transformation. Dr. Patel surveys the emerging drug pipeline that will fundamentally change how clinicians treat obstructive sleep apnea, narcolepsy, and idiopathic hypersomnia.

For obstructive sleep apnea, Dr. Patel discusses AD-109 (atomoxetine and R-oxybutynin), explaining the mechanistic rationale and practical considerations including use with tirzepatide. The Incannex drug combining dronabinol and acetazolamide receives analysis for different patient populations, and sultiame is discussed as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor option. A critical framework emerges: Should treatment be symptom-based or airway-focused when PAP-intolerant patients present?

Tirzepatide, the GLP-1 agonist FDA-approved for moderate-to-severe OSA, receives comprehensive coverage including muscle loss concerns, long-term use, and emerging oral GLP-1 options. Retatrutide, the triple-hormone agent combining GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon, is also discussed.

The episode's most exciting segment focuses on orexin agonists for narcolepsy. Three pharmaceutical companies—Alkemeres, Centessa (purchased by Lilly), and Takeda—are developing these mechanistically novel agents. Dr. Patel clarifies how these medications differ, discusses why one medication disrupted nocturnal sleep (suggesting continued roles for oxybates), and addresses how clinicians will choose between similar medications.

Dr. Patel emphasizes a fundamental question: Should the field prioritize symptom management versus airway patency for OSA, and mechanistic approaches versus symptom management for narcolepsy?

Whether you're interested in emerging OSA treatments, narcolepsy innovations, or the future of pharmacological sleep medicine, this live episode provides essential updates on medications that will soon reshape clinical practice.

Join us for this exciting conversation about how sleep medicine will transform in the coming years.

In this episode of Talking Sleep, host Dr. Seema Khosla welcomes Dr. Abhishek Goyal, Professor and Head of Respiratory Medicine in Dehradoon, India, and Dr. Prakhar Agarwal, a pulmonologist in private practice in Bhopal, India, to discuss their research comparing fixed CPAP versus auto-titrating CPAP (APAP) on blood pressure control and autonomic nervous system response.

For years, difficult-to-treat hypertension has been recognized as an indication for sleep studies, reflecting the assumption that treating sleep apnea improves blood pressure. But does the method of PAP therapy matter? Beyond achieving a residual AHI under 5, are there treatment nuances that could optimize cardiovascular outcomes? Dr. Goyal and Dr. Agarwal's research addresses these questions, building on landmark work by Dr. Pepin examining fixed versus auto-titrating PAP therapy.

The motivation includes both clinical and economic considerations. A 2021 Portuguese study examined cost implications, and similar economic pressures exist in India where APAP is significantly more expensive than fixed CPAP. The study used a crossover design comparing fixed CPAP to APAP, measuring blood pressure dipping patterns and autonomic response to assess cardiovascular effects.

The results have prompted Dr. Goyal to reconsider his clinical practice regarding pressure selection, raising important questions: If fixed CPAP offers superior blood pressure outcomes, should the standard practice of prescribing APAP devices be reconsidered? This challenges assumptions about adaptive algorithms and raises questions about prioritizing cardiovascular outcomes beyond AHI reduction.

The episode contextualizes these findings within India's unique healthcare landscape, exploring surprising OSA incidence data and examining whether craniofacial anatomy or arousal patterns differ from Western populations. Dr. Agarwal discusses how pressures are typically determined and the practical differences between APAP 4-20 versus narrow-range settings.

Whether you're prescribing PAP therapy for hypertension, optimizing cardiovascular outcomes, or seeking evidence-based approaches to pressure selection, this episode provides important international perspectives.

Join us for this discussion that may prompt reconsideration of how we set PAP pressures and what outcomes we should prioritize.

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.