[Long term compliance with an oral protrusive appliance in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea]

Factors influencing adherence to oral appliance therapy in adults with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The review aimed to identify the factors influencing adherence to oral appliance therapy in adults with obstructive sleep apnea.

METHODS

The protocol was initially registered with the International Register of Systematic Reviews (Prospero: CRD42019122615) prior to undertaking a comprehensive electronic search of databases and references without language and date restrictions. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

RESULTS

Studies exhibited low or unclear risk of bias for the domains assessed by the respective quality assessment tools. The influence of independent variables such as disease characteristics, patient characteristics, appliance features, and psychological and social factors on adherence levels was also assessed. There was a total of 31 included studies, which consisted of 8 randomized controlled trials, 2 controlled clinical trial, 7 prospective cohorts, 11 retrospective cohorts, and the remaining 3 studies were a case-series, case-control, and a mixed-methods. All 31 included studies were subject to qualitative analysis, with only 4 studies included in the quantitative analysis. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated increased adherence with custom-made appliances, with a pooled mean difference of -1.34 (-2.02 to -0.66) and low levels of heterogeneity (I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

A weak relationship was observed between objective adherence and patient and disease characteristics, such as age, sex, obesity, apnea-hypopnea index, and daytime sleepiness, to oral appliance therapy. Nonadherent patients reported more side effects with oral appliance therapy than users and tended to discontinue the treatment within the first 3 months. Custom-made oral appliances were preferred and increased adherence reported in comparison to ready-made appliances. Further research is imperative to examine the relationship between psychosocial factors and adherence to oral appliance therapy.

A randomized, controlled trial of positional therapy versus oral appliance therapy for position-dependent sleep apnea

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of positional therapy (PT) with the sleep position trainer (SPT) to oral appliance therapy (OAT) in patients with mild-to-moderate positional obstructive sleep apnea (POSA).

METHODS

Multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Patients with mild-to-moderate POSA (apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥5 ≤ 30/hour sleep) were randomized for PT or OAT. Polysomnography was repeated after 3 months. Efficacy, adherence, mean disease alleviation (MDA), quality of life, dropouts and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients were screened for the study; 99 underwent randomization and 81 completed the study. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of median [IQR] AHI showed a reduction in the PT group from 13.0 [9.7-18.5] to 7.0 [3.8-12.8], p < 0.001 and in the OAT group from 11.7 [9.0-16.2] to 9.1 [4.9-11.7], p < 0.001. Mean adherence (≥4 h/night, ≥5 days/week) was 89.3 ± 22.4% for SPT versus 81.3 ± 30.0% in OAT patients, p = 0.208.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral appliance therapy and positional therapy were equally effective in reducing the median AHI in patients with mild-to-moderate POSA. The results of this study have important implications for future OSA treatment guidelines and daily clinical practice. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV NUMBER

NCT02045576.

A mandibular advancement device for the ENT office to treat obstructive sleep apnea

Objective

To prospectively evaluate the efficacy of the mandibular advancement device (MAD) Somnoguard in the treatment of OSA patients.

Study Design and Setting

Forty-four patients with OSA and noncompliant to continuous positive airway pressure were enrolled in this case series. Somnoguard is made of thermoplastic material. Direct intraoral fitting was done by an otorhinolaryngologist. Polysomnographic data concerning sleep and respiration were assessed at baseline and after familiarization with the MAD.

Results

Sleep efficiency and sleep stages distribution did not change significantly. The RDI could be reduced from 31.5 ± 17.6 to 18.2 ± 17.0 ( P < 0.05), the minimal oxygen saturation increased from 78 ± 12.9 to 82 ± 12.5% ( P < 0.05). According to standard criteria, 18 patients were cured, 12 were improved, 8 remained unchanged, and 6 worsened. Snoring time decreased from 223 ± 132 to 183 ± 134 minutes ( P < 0.05).

Conclusion and Significance

With Somnoguard 68% of the enrolled OSA patients could be cured or substantially improved. It is a simple MAD for the otolaryngologist.

Atomoxetine improves sleepiness and global severity of illness but not the respiratory disturbance index in mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea with sleepiness

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as protriptyline have been shown to improve sleepiness in sleep apnea, with or without improvement in the respiratory disturbance index (RDI). This study was performed to evaluate whether the selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor atomoxetine improves sleepiness, the clinical global impression (CGI) of severity of illness, and the RDI in patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea with excessive sleepiness.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-60 years with RDI (including apneas, hypopneas with desaturations and hypopneas with arousals) >5/h sleep, apnea-hypopnea index (AHI; including apneas, hypopneas with 4% desaturations, but not apneas with arousals) <15/h sleep, and excessive sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS]>or=10) received open-label treatment with atomoxetine 40-80 mg HS for 4 weeks, with repeat polysomnography at the end of treatment. Of 20 patients screened, 17 started treatment and 15 completed treatment.

RESULTS

ESS improved from 15.3 to 10.5 and CGI improved from 4.3 to 3.1 (both significant at p<0.01), but there was no significant change in RDI. ESS and CGI improved in a linear fashion across the weeks of treatment. Sleep efficiency and % stage rapid eye movement (REM) sleep were decreased, and % stage 1, awakenings and wake after sleep onset were increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Atomoxetine improved sleepiness and the CGI in patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea with sleepiness. However, it did not improve the RDI.

Efficacy and co-morbidity of oral appliances in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea: a systematic review

The Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome (OSAHS) is a common sleep-related breathing disorder characterized by repetitive obstructions of the upper airway during sleep. Modification of pharyngeal patency by Oral Appliance (OA) therapy has been suggested as an alternative to various treatment modalities for OSAHS. To determine the evidence base with respect to the efficacy and co-morbidity of OA therapy in OSAHS, we conducted a systematic review of the available literature. Primary outcome measures were the reduction in number of upper-airway obstructions and co-morbidity related to the craniomandibular or craniofacial complex, respectively. Eligible studies regarding efficacy were independently assessed by two assessors using a quality assessment scale. Effect sizes of methodologically sound studies were calculated. In identical interventions, effect sizes were pooled with the use of a random-effects model. Given the scarcity of controlled studies related to co-morbidity, appraisal was confined to a description of eligible studies. Sixteen controlled trials related to efficacy were identified. With respect to the primary outcome measure, OA therapy was clearly more effective than control therapy (pooled effect size, -0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.49 to -0.42) and possibly more effective than uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Although patients generally preferred OA therapy, improvement of respiratory variables, such as the number of upper-airway obstructions, was usually better in Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) therapy (pooled effect size, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.06). Moreover, specific aspects related to OA design may influence patient-perceived efficacy and preference. Twelve patient-series and one controlled trial related to co-morbidity were identified. Analysis of the data suggests that OA therapy may have adverse effects on the craniomandibular and craniofacial complex. Although CPAP is apparently more effective and adverse effects of OA treatment have been described, it can be concluded that OA therapy is a viable treatment for, especially, mild to moderate OSAHS. Controlled studies addressing the specific indication and co-morbidity of OA therapy are warranted.