Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of oral mandibular advancement devices and continuous positive airway pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea.

Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH) causes excessive daytime sleepiness, impairs quality-of-life, and increases cardiovascular disease and road traffic accident risks. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment and mandibular advancement devices (MAD) have been shown to be effective in individual trials but their effectiveness particularly relative to disease severity is unclear. A MEDLINE, Embase and Science Citation Index search updating two systematic reviews to August 2013 identified 77 RCTs in adult OSAH patients comparing: MAD with conservative management (CM); MAD with CPAP; or CPAP with CM. Overall MAD and CPAP significantly improved apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) (MAD -9.3/hr (p < 0.001), CPAP -25.4 (p < 0.001)). In direct comparisons mean AHI and Epworth sleepiness scale score were lower (7.0/hr (p < 0.001) and 0.67 (p = 0.093) respectively) for CPAP. There were no CPAP vs. MAD trials in mild OSAH but in comparisons with CM, MAD and CPAP reduced ESS similarly (MAD 2.01 (p < 0.001); CPAP 1.23 (p = 0.012). Both MAD and CPAP are clinically effective in the treatment of OSAH. Although CPAP has a greater treatment effect, MAD is an appropriate treatment for patients who are intolerant of CPAP and may be comparable to CPAP in mild disease.

Alternatives to continuous positive airway pressure 2: mandibular advancement devices compared.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although mandibular advancement devices (MADs) provide an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), their effectiveness and role remain unclear. Several recent studies and an updated meta-analysis have attempted to address these uncertainties. This review examines their contribution to the existing evidence and discusses the future priorities for MAD research. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent work has examined the impact of MAD design on clinical and cost-effectiveness in milder disease. A robust comparison of CPAP and MADs in more severe OSA has reported equivalent improvements in several important health outcomes. Other notable contributions have examined compliance, definitions of treatment success and longer term outcomes of MAD therapy. SUMMARY: There is now a growing body of evidence suggesting that MADs are a clinically and cost-effective treatment for OSA; and in some cases, patient preference may make them a better option than CPAP. Further work needs to continue to refine MAD therapy in order to optimize treatment response and compliance, whilst retaining a pragmatic and cost-effective approach that is relevant to clinical practice and sustainable in the longer term.

A crossover randomised controlled trial of oral mandibular advancement devices for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO).

RATIONALE: Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are used to treat obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS) but evidence is lacking regarding their clinical and cost-effectiveness in less severe disease. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a range of MADs against no treatment in mild to moderate OSAHS. MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, randomised, controlled, crossover trial was undertaken at a UK sleep centre. Adults with Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) 5-<30/h and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score ≥9 underwent 6 weeks of treatment with three non-adjustable MADs: self-moulded (SleepPro 1; SP1); semi-bespoke (SleepPro 2; SP2); fully-bespoke MAD (bMAD); and 4 weeks no treatment. Primary outcome was AHI scored by a polysomnographer blinded to treatment. Secondary outcomes included ESS, quality of life, resource use and cost. MAIN RESULTS: 90 patients were randomised and 83 were analysed. All devices reduced AHI compared with no treatment by 26% (95% CI 11% to 38%, p=0.001) for SP1, 33% (95% CI 24% to 41%) for SP2 and 36% (95% CI 24% to 45%, p<0.001) for bMAD. ESS was 1.51 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29, p<0.001, SP1) to 2.37 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.22, p<0.001, bMAD) lower than no treatment (p<0.001 for all). Compliance was lower for SP1, which was the least preferred treatment at trial exit. All devices were cost-effective compared with no treatment at a £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold. SP2 was the most cost-effective up to £39,800/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adjustable MADs achieve clinically important improvements in mild to moderate OSAHS and are cost-effective. Of those trialled, the semi-bespoke MAD is an appropriate first choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN02309506.