Kate Sutherland1,2, Hisashi Takaya3, Jin Qian4, Peter Petocz5, Andrew T Ng4, Peter A Cistulli1,2. 1. Centre for Sleep Health and Research, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Australia. 2. Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, St George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 5. Department of Statistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Mandibular advancement splints (MAS) are an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); however, therapeutic response is variable. Younger age, female gender, less obesity, and milder and supine-dependent OSA have variably been associated with treatment success in relatively small samples. Our objective was to utilize a large cohort of MAS treated patients (1) to compare efficacy across patients with different phenotypes of OSA and (2) to assess demographic, anthropometric, and polysomnography variables as treatment response predictors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of MAS-treated patients participating in clinical trials in sleep centers in Sydney, Australia between years 2000-2013. All studies used equivalent customized two-piece MAS devices and treatment protocols. Treatment response was defined as (1) apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) < 5/h, (2) AHI < 10/h and ≥ 50% reduction, and (3) ≥ 50% AHI reduction. RESULTS: A total of 425 patients (109 female) were included (age 51.2 ± 10.9 years, BMI 29.2 ± 5.0 kg/m2). MAS reduced AHI by 50.3% ± 50.7% across the group. Supine-predominant OSA patients had lower treatment response rates than non-positional OSA (e.g., 36% vs. 59% for AHI < 10/h). REM-predominant OSA showed a lower response rate than either NREM or non-stage dependent OSA. In prediction modelling, age, baseline AHI, and anthropometric variables were predictive of MAS treatment outcome but not OSA phenotype. Gender was not associated with treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: Lower MAS treatment response rates were observed in supine and REM sleep. In a large sample, we confirm that demographic, anthropometric, and polysomnographic data only weakly inform about MAS efficacy, supporting the need for alternative objective prediction methods to reliably select patients for MAS treatment.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Mandibular advancement splints (MAS) are an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); however, therapeutic response is variable. Younger age, female gender, less obesity, and milder and supine-dependent OSA have variably been associated with treatment success in relatively small samples. Our objective was to utilize a large cohort of MAS treated patients (1) to compare efficacy across patients with different phenotypes of OSA and (2) to assess demographic, anthropometric, and polysomnography variables as treatment response predictors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of MAS-treated patients participating in clinical trials in sleep centers in Sydney, Australia between years 2000-2013. All studies used equivalent customized two-piece MAS devices and treatment protocols. Treatment response was defined as (1) apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) < 5/h, (2) AHI < 10/h and ≥ 50% reduction, and (3) ≥ 50% AHI reduction. RESULTS: A total of 425 patients (109 female) were included (age 51.2 ± 10.9 years, BMI 29.2 ± 5.0 kg/m2). MAS reduced AHI by 50.3% ± 50.7% across the group. Supine-predominant OSA patients had lower treatment response rates than non-positional OSA (e.g., 36% vs. 59% for AHI < 10/h). REM-predominant OSA showed a lower response rate than either NREM or non-stage dependent OSA. In prediction modelling, age, baseline AHI, and anthropometric variables were predictive of MAS treatment outcome but not OSA phenotype. Gender was not associated with treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: Lower MAS treatment response rates were observed in supine and REM sleep. In a large sample, we confirm that demographic, anthropometric, and polysomnographic data only weakly inform about MAS efficacy, supporting the need for alternative objective prediction methods to reliably select patients for MAS treatment.
Authors: Clete A Kushida; Michael R Littner; Timothy Morgenthaler; Cathy A Alessi; Dennis Bailey; Jack Coleman; Leah Friedman; Max Hirshkowitz; Sheldon Kapen; Milton Kramer; Teofilo Lee-Chiong; Daniel L Loube; Judith Owens; Jeffrey P Pancer; Merrill Wise Journal: Sleep Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Craig L Phillips; Ronald R Grunstein; M Ali Darendeliler; Anastasia S Mihailidou; Vasantha K Srinivasan; Brendon J Yee; Guy B Marks; Peter A Cistulli Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Benjamin K Tong; Carolin Tran; Andrea Ricciardiello; Alan Chiang; Michelle Donegan; Nick Murray; Irene Szollosi; Jason Amatoury; Jayne C Carberry; Danny J Eckert Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Kate Sutherland; Andrew S L Chan; Joachim Ngiam; M Ali Darendeliler; Peter A Cistulli Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Bradley A Edwards; Christopher Andara; Shane Landry; Scott A Sands; Simon A Joosten; Robert L Owens; David P White; Garun S Hamilton; Andrew Wellman Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405