Mandibular advancement device use in obstructive sleep apnea: ORCADES study 5-year follow-up data.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure for the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The ORthèse d'avanCée mAndibulaire dans le traitement en DEuxième intention du SAHOS sévère (ORCADES) study is investigating the long-term effectiveness of MAD therapy in patients with OSA who refused or were intolerant of continuous positive airway pressure. Five-year follow-up data are presented. METHODS: Data were available in 172 of 331 patients treated with a custom-made computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing biblock MAD (Narval CC; ResMed, Saint-Priest, France). The primary end point was treatment success (≥50% decrease in apnea-hypopnea index from baseline). RESULTS: Five-year treatment success rates were 52% overall and 25%, 52%, and 63%, respectively, in patients with mild, moderate, or severe OSA. This reflects a decline over time vs 3-6 months (79% overall) and 2 years (68%). Rates declined in all patient subgroups but to the greatest extent in patients with mild OSA. The slight worsening of respiratory parameters over time was not associated with any relevant changes in sleepiness and symptoms. Moderate or severe OSA at baseline, treatment success at 3-6 months, and no previous continuous positive airway pressure use were significant independent predictors of 5-year treatment success on multivariate analysis. No new safety signals emerged during long-term follow-up. The proportion of patients using their MAD for ≥4 h/night on ≥4 days/wk was 93.3%; 91.3% of patients reported device use of ≥6 h/night at 5 years. At 5-year follow-up, 96.5% of patients reported that they wanted to continue MAD therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term MAD therapy remained effective after 5 years in >50% of patients, with good levels of patient satisfaction and adherence. CITATION: Vecchierini MF, Attali V, Collet JM, et al. Mandibular advancement device use in obstructive sleep apnea: ORCADES study 5-year follow-up data. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(8):1695-1705.

Efficacy and tolerability of a custom-made Narval mandibular repositioning device for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: ORCADES study 2-year follow-up data.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Mandibular repositioning device (MRD) therapy is an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The Orkney Complex Disease Study-ORCADES study is assessing the long-term efficacy and tolerability of MRD therapy in obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS); two-year follow-up data are presented. PATIENTS/METHODS: OSAS patients who refused or were noncompliant with CPAP were fitted with a custom-made computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) bi-block MRD (ResMed, Narval CC™); mandibular advancement was individually titrated. Sleep and respiratory parameters were determined at baseline, 3-6 months, and two years. The primary endpoint was treatment success (percentage of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in the apnoea-hypopnoea index [AHI]). RESULTS: Of 315 enrolled patients, 237 remained on MRD treatment at two years, and 197 had follow-up data. The treatment success rate at two years was 67%; AHI <5/h, <10/h and <15/h was achieved in 30%, 56% and 72% of patients, respectively. On multivariate analysis, ≥50% decrease in AHI at 3-6 months and absence of nocturia at 3-6 months were significant predictors of MRD treatment continuation. Adverse events were generally mild, and the majority occurred in the first year of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Two years' treatment with an MRD was effective and well tolerated in patients with mild to severe OSAS who refused or were intolerant of CPAP.

Sex differences in mandibular repositioning device therapy effectiveness in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

PURPOSE: Mandibular repositioning devices (MRDs) are an effective treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), particularly in patients who refuse or cannot tolerate continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, sex differences in the response to therapy and predictors of response are not clearly defined. This analysis of data from the long-term prospective ORCADES trial compared MRD efficacy in men and women with OSAS. METHODS: The ORCADES study included patients with newly diagnosed mild-to-moderate or severe OSAS who refused or were non-compliant with CPAP. MRD therapy was titrated over 3-6 months. The primary endpoint was treatment success (≥ 50% decrease in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI)). Complete response was defined using a range of AHI cut-off values (< 5/h, < 10/h, < 15/h). RESULTS: Overall treatment success rates were 89% in women and 76% in men (p = 0.019); corresponding rates in those with severe OSAS (AHI > 30/h) were 100% and 68% (p = 0.0015). In women vs. men, overall complete response rates at AHI cut-off values of < 5/h, <10/h, and < 15/h were 49 vs. 34% (p = 0.0052), 78 vs. 62% (p = 0.016), and 92 vs. 76% (p = 0.0032). On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of MRD treatment success were overbite and baseline apnea index in men, and neck circumference and no previous CPAP therapy in women. There were sex differences in the occurrence of side effects. Temporomandibular joint pain was the most common reason for stopping MRD therapy. CONCLUSIONS: MRD therapy was effective in women with OSA of any severity, with significantly higher response rates compared with men especially in severe OSAS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01326143).

Poor sleep is highly associated with house dust mite allergic rhinitis in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disorders are often underreported to physicians by patients with allergies. This study aimed to characterize the sleep disorders associated with respiratory allergy to house dust mites (HDM) at the time of initiation of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted between November 2014 and March 2015 at 189 French trial sites and included 1750 participants suffering from HDM allergy who were initiating SLIT. Participants aged less than 5 years old and those who had previously started an allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for HDM allergy were not enrolled in the study. Sleep disorders were assessed by self-administered questionnaires: the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and a modified version of the Hotel Dieu-42 (HD-42) sleep disorder questionnaire. Logistic regression models adjusted for obesity, smoking status, asthma control and nasal obstruction were used to study the relationship between allergic rhinitis (AR) classification and sleep disorders/complaints. RESULTS: Of the 1786 participants enrolled, 1750 (907 adults and 843 children) composed the analysis population. The majority of participants (73.5% of adults and 65.8% of children) reported that their sleep disorders had prompted them to consult their physician. The most commonly observed sleep complaints were poor-quality sleep (50.3% of adults and 37.3% of children), snoring (48.1 and 41.4%, respectively) and nocturnal awakening (37.6 and 28.2%, respectively). Difficulties falling asleep were reported by 27.0% of adults and 24.7% of children. Adults and children suffering from severe persistent AR experienced sleep complaints significantly more often than participants with intermittent or mild persistent AR. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high frequency of sleep disorders and their significant impact on patients with AR induced by HDM, in particular when AR is persistent and severe. Consequently, asking allergic patients about the quality of their sleep appears to be important, especially when the patient has persistent and severe AR.

[How to consider triggers and comorbid conditions in severe asthma in adults]. / Comment considérer et prendre en charge les facteurs favorisants et les comorbidités dans l'asthme sévère de l'adulte ?

Triggers and precipitating factors as well as comorbid conditions are associated with asthma and severe asthma. They interfere with the potential to control the disease and represent an additional burden for the patients. Allergen exposure is well known to induce loss of control and exacerbations. Comorbid conditions belong to various fields of medicines including cardiovascular diseases, osteoporosis, obesity and sleep apneas and GERD. They should be diagnosed and treated for themselves according to the best state of the art. Their precise role et their contribution to severe asthma pathophysiology is largely unknown and longitudinal cohort studies are needed to better understand and treat the patients with severe asthma.

A custom-made mandibular repositioning device for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome: the ORCADES study.

BACKGROUND: Mandibular repositioning devices (MRDs) are usually recommended as the first therapy option in patients with mild-to-moderate obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, data on the long-term efficacy of MRDs are limited, not only in OSA patients who are noncompliant with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) but also in those with more severe OSA. The ORCADES study aimed to prospectively determine the long-term efficacy and tolerability of two custom-made Narval(™) MRDs for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS) patients. The interim 3- to 6-month data are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had OSAHS and had refused or were noncompliant with prescribed CPAP. Outcome measurements after gradual mandibular advancement titration included: apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI), oxygen saturation, sleepiness, symptoms, quality of life, side effects and compliance. RESULTS: A total of 369 patients were included. Overall, MRD treatment was successful (≥50% decrease in AHI) in 76.2% of the participants; complete response (AHI <10/h) was achieved in 63.5%. Severe OSAHS was effectively treated (AHI <15/h) in about 60% of the participants; 38% had complete symptom resolution. Mandibular repositioning devices significantly decreased subjective sleepiness, eliminated symptoms and improved quality of life. They were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Only 8% of the participants stopped MRD treatment due to side effects. CONCLUSION: Custom-made Narval(™) MRDs are effective for mild to severe OSA in patients who refuse or are noncompliant with CPAP. They are well tolerated and have excellent compliance.

Maintaining asthma control in persistent asthma: comparison of three strategies in a 6-month double-blind randomised study.

UNLABELLED: In patients controlled with SFC250 Diskus bd, this double-blind, randomised 6-month study compared continuing SFC250 to stepping down to either SFC100 bd or FP250 bd. Six hundred and three patients previously using 1,000 microg BDP (or equivalent) daily +LABA and controlled according to investigator's judgement were recruited. Patients received SFC250 bd during an 8-week open run-in period. Four hundred and seventy six patients (mean age=43 years, mean FEV(1)=2.9+/-1.0) who fulfilled the randomisation criterion ('Well-controlled' asthma according to the GOAL weekly definition for the last 2 weeks of the run-in period) entered a 24-week treatment period. The statistical hypothesis was based on a non-inferiority of SFC100 or FP250 compared to SFC250. The main criterion was the change from baseline in morning PEF over weeks 1-12 in the per-protocol population. The non-inferiority limit was -15 L/min. At inclusion, the three treatment groups were well balanced. Mean morning PEF was 476, 470 and 465 L/min in the SFC250, SFC100 and FP250 groups, respectively. The adjusted mean change in morning PEF over weeks 1-12 was +1.76+/-2.43 L/min for SFC250, -3.07+/-2.32 L/min for SFC100 and -16.51+/-2.46 L/min for FP250. SFC100 was at least as effective as SFC250 (treatment difference -4.83 [-12.39; 2.72], p=0.151) whereas FP250 was not (treatment difference -18.27 [-26.05; -10.49], p<0.001). Similar results were observed over weeks 13-24 in morning PEF (SFC100-SFC250=-4.54+/-3.84, p=0.238; FP250-SFC250=-20.11+/-3.92, p<0.0001). Secondary endpoints showed a similar pattern. Over weeks 1-12, SFC250 was significantly more effective than FP250 on evening PEF, daily symptoms and bronchodilator use. There was no difference between SFC100 and SFC250. The mean annual rate of moderate exacerbations was 0.16 in both SFC 250 and SFC 100 groups, and 0.21 in FP 250 group (ns, Poisson analysis). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In patients achieving asthma control with SFC250, stepping treatment down with SFC100 was at least as effective on lung function and symptoms as continuing SFC250, whereas FP250 was not.