. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Sleep Res. 2017 Oct 19;27(4):e12627. doi: 10.1111/jsr.12627

Table 2. Three-group response to treatment categorization.

	Required criteria
Response	Comments from notes	Changes to medication	On monotherapy at last FU, n = 92 (%)^*	On combined treatment at last FU, n = 34 (%)	ΔESS (no. of patients available)^†
Complete response	‘Great, excellent, entirely satisfactory, very well indeed’	None	43 (47)	6 (18)	−9.83 ± 4.13 (18)
Partial response	‘Reasonably well controlled, doing better, better overall’	Dose increase or drug added	19 (21)	13 (38)	−4.38 ± 4.91 (16)
Poor response	‘Still sleepy, has not done well, intolerable SEs’	Medication changed	30 (33)	15 (44)	−3.95 ± 5.16 (20)

ESS, Epworth Sleepiness score; SEs, side effects; FU, follow-up.

P = 0.009. Comparison of treatment outcome between monotherapy and combined treatment using chi-square wilh Cramer’s V product.

^†

P = 0.001. Analysis was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis lest with Dunn’s multiple comparison lest. Complete response versus poor response, P = 0.002. Complete response versus partial response, P = 0.005. Δ: delta. Dala are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).