Interactions Between Obesity and Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Implications for Treatment

Introduction:Since the previous parameter and review paper publication on oral appliances (OAs) in 2006, the relevant scientific literature has grown considerably, particularly in relation to clini...

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Snoring with Oral Appliance Therapy: An Update for 2015.

In this guideline on the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in adults, the American College of Physicians recommends a sleep study for patients with unexplained daytime sleepiness, polysomnograph...

http://rossleep.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Rekomendatsii-ACH.pdf

Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians

Rationale: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and mandibular advancement device (MAD) therapy are commonly used to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Differences in efficacy and compliance of these treatments are likely to influence improvements in health outcomes.Objectives: To compare health effects after 1 month of optimal CPAP and MAD therapy in OSA.Methods: In this randomized crossover trial, we compared the effects of 1 month each of CPAP and MAD treatment on cardiovascular and neurobehavioral outcomes.Measurements and Main Results: Cardiovascular (24-h blood pressure, arterial stiffness), neurobehavioral (subjective sleepiness, driving simulator performance), and quality of life (Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Short Form-36) were compared between treatments. Our primary outcome was 24-hour mean arterial pressure. A total of 126 patients with moderate-severe OSA (apnea hypopnea index [AHI], 25.6 [SD 12.3]) were randomly assigned to a treatment order and 108 completed the trial...

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.201212-2223OC

Health outcomes of continuous positive airway pressure versus oral appliance treatment for obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial.

Background Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH) is a syndrome characterised by recurrent episodes of partial or complete upper airway obstruction during sleep that are usually terminated by an arousal. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the primary treatment for OSAH , but many patients are unable or unwilling to comply with this treatment. Oral appliances (OA) are an alternative treatment for OSAH. Objectives The objective was to review the effects of OA in the treatment of OSAH in adults. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. Searches were current as of June 2005. Reference lists of articles were also searched. Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing OA with control or other treatments in adults with OSAH . Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Main results Sixteen studies (745 participants) met the inclusion criteria. All the studies had some shortcomings, such as small sample size, under-reporting of methods and data, and lack of blinding. OA versus control appliances (six studies): OA reduced daytime sleepiness in two crossover trials (WMD -1.81;95%CI -2.72 to -0.90), and improved apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) (-10.78; 95% CI-15.53 to -6.03 parallel group data - five studies). OA versus CPAP (nine studies): OA were less effective than CPAP in reducing apnoea-hypopnoea index (parallel group studies: WMD 13 (95% CI 7.63 to 18.36), two trials; crossover studies: WMD 7.97; (95% CI 6.38 to 9.56, seven trials). However, no significant difference was observed on symptom scores. CPAP was more effective at improving minimum arterial oxygen saturation during sleep compared with OA. In two small crossover studies, participants preferred OA therapy to CPAP. OA versus corrective upper airway surgery (one study): Symptoms of daytime sleepiness were initially lower with surgery, but this difference disappeared at 12 months. AHI did not differ significantly initially, but did so after 12 months in favour of OA. Authors' conclusions There is increasing evidence suggesting that OA improves subjective sleepiness and sleep disordered breathing compared with a control. CPAP appears to be more effective in improving sleep disordered breathing than OA. The difference in symptomatic response between these two treatments is not significant, although it is not possible to exclude an effect in favour of either therapy. Until there is more definitive evidence on the effectiveness of OA in relation to CPAP, with regard to symptoms and long-term complications, it would appear to be appropriate to recommend OA therapy to patients with mild symptomatic OSAH, and those patients who are unwilling or unable to tolerate CPAP therapy. Future research should recruit patients with more severe symptoms of sleepiness, to establish whether the response to therapy differs between subgroups in terms of quality of life, symptoms and persistence with usage. Long-term data on cardiovascular health are required.

Oral appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea

Background: Patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) may be managed with different treatment options. This study compared the effectiveness of three commonly used non-surgical treatment modalities. Methods: Subjects with mild to moderate OSA were randomised to one of three treatment groups for 10 weeks: conservative measures (sleep hygiene) only, continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) in addition to conservative measures or an oral appliance in addition to conservative measures. All overweight subjects were referred to a weight-reduction class. OSA was assessed by polysomnography. Blood pressure was recorded in the morning and evening in the sleep laboratory. Daytime sleepiness was assessed with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was assessed with the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Sleep Apnoea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI). Results: 101 subjects with a mean (SEM) apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) of 21.4 (1.1) were randomised to one of the three groups. The severity of sleep-disordered breathing was decreased in the CPAP and oral appliance groups compared with the conservative measures group, and the CPAP group was significantly better than the oral appliance group. Relief from sleepiness was significantly better in the CPAP group. CPAP was also better than the oral appliance or conservative measures in improving the “bodily pain” domain, and better than conservative measures in improving the “physical function” domain of SF-36. Both CPAP and the oral appliance were more effective than conservative measures in improving the SAQLI, although no difference was detected between the CPAP and oral appliance groups. CPAP and the oral appliance significantly lowered the morning diastolic blood pressure compared with baseline values, but there was no difference in the changes in blood pressure between the groups. There was also a linear relationship between the changes in AHI and body weight. Conclusion: CPAP produced the best improvement in terms of physiological, symptomatic and HRQOL measures, while the oral appliance was slightly less effective. Weight loss, if achieved, resulted in an improvement in sleep parameters, but weight control alone was not uniformly effective.

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/thoraxjnl/62/4/354.full.pdf

Wendy Y W Mok

Papers

Randomised study of three non-surgical treatments in mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea

A Chinese version of the Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index was evaluated for reliability, validity, and responsiveness.