Association between a recalled positive airway pressure device and incident cancer: a population-based study

The real-world consequences of a Philips Respironics recall for positive airway pressure (PAP) devices distributed between 2009 and 2021 are unknown.

We conducted a retrospective population-based study using health administrative databases (Ontario, Canada) on all new adult PAP users identified through the provincial funding system, free of cancer at baseline, who initiated (claimed) PAP treatment between 2012 and 2018. Everyone was followed from the PAP claim date to the earliest of incident cancer diagnosis, death or end of follow-up (March 2022). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics between individuals on recalled devices and those on devices from other manufacturers. Weighted hazard ratios of incident cancer were compared between groups.

Of 231 692 individuals identified, 58 204 (25.1%) claimed recalled devices and 173 488 (74.9%) claimed devices from other manufacturers. A meaningful baseline difference between groups (standardised difference ≥0.10) was noted only by location-relevant covariates; other variables were mostly equally distributed (standardised differences ≤0.06). Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6.3 (4.9-8.0) years, 11 166 (4.8%) developed cancer: unadjusted rates per 10 000 person-years of 78.8 (95% CI 76.0-81.7) in the recall group versus 74.0 (95% CI 72.4-75.6) in others (p=0.0034). Propensity score weighting achieved excellent balance in baseline characteristics between groups (standardised differences ≤0.07). On a weighted sample, there was no statistical difference in the hazard of incident cancer between groups: cause-specific hazard ratio (recalled versus others) 0.97 (95% CI 0.89-1.06).

In our real-world population study, compared to other manufacturers and adjusting for confounders, recalled Philips Respironics PAP devices do not appear to be independently associated with developing cancer.