Kate Sutherland1,2,3, Andrew S L Chan1,2, Joachim Ngiam1,2, Oyku Dalci4, M Ali Darendeliler4, Peter A Cistulli1,2,3. 1. Centre for Sleep Health and Research, Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. 2. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney Dental Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: An oral appliance (OA) is a validated treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, therapeutic response is not certain in any individual and is a clinical barrier to implementing this form of therapy. Therefore, accurate and clinically applicable prediction methods are needed. The goal of this study was to derive prediction models based on multiple awake assessments capturing different aspects of the pharyngeal response to mandibular advancement. We hypothesized that a multimodal model would provide robust prediction. METHODS: Patients with OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] > 10 events/h) were recruited for treatment with a customized OA (n = 142, 59% male). Participants underwent facial photography (craniofacial structure), spirometry (mid-inspiratory flow at 50% vital capacity [MIF50] and mid-expiratory flow at 50% vital capacity [MEF50] and the ratio MEF50/MIF50) and nasopharyngoscopy (velopharyngeal collapse with Mueller maneuver and mandibular advancement). Treatment response was defined by 3 criteria: (1) AHI < 5 events/h plus ≥ 50% reduction, (2) AHI < 10 events/h plus ≥ 50% reduction, (3) ≥ 50% AHI reduction. Multivariable regression models were used to assess predictive utility of phenotypic assessments compared to clinical characteristics alone (age, sex, obesity, baseline AHI). RESULTS: Craniofacial structure and flow-volume loops predicted treatment response. Accuracy of the prediction models (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) for each criterion were 0.90 (criterion 1), 0.79 (criterion 2), and 0.78 (criterion 3). However, these prediction models including phenotypic assessments did not provide a statistically significant improvement over clinical predictors only. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal awake phenotyping does not enhance OA treatment outcome prediction. These office-based, awake assessments have limited utility for robust clinical prediction models. Future work should focus on sleep-related assessments. COMMENTARY: A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 1837. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Title: Multimodal phenotyping for the prediction of oral appliance treatment outcome in obstructive sleep apnoea, Identifier: ACTRN12611000409976, URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=336663.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: An oral appliance (OA) is a validated treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, therapeutic response is not certain in any individual and is a clinical barrier to implementing this form of therapy. Therefore, accurate and clinically applicable prediction methods are needed. The goal of this study was to derive prediction models based on multiple awake assessments capturing different aspects of the pharyngeal response to mandibular advancement. We hypothesized that a multimodal model would provide robust prediction. METHODS:Patients with OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] > 10 events/h) were recruited for treatment with a customized OA (n = 142, 59% male). Participants underwent facial photography (craniofacial structure), spirometry (mid-inspiratory flow at 50% vital capacity [MIF50] and mid-expiratory flow at 50% vital capacity [MEF50] and the ratio MEF50/MIF50) and nasopharyngoscopy (velopharyngeal collapse with Mueller maneuver and mandibular advancement). Treatment response was defined by 3 criteria: (1) AHI < 5 events/h plus ≥ 50% reduction, (2) AHI < 10 events/h plus ≥ 50% reduction, (3) ≥ 50% AHI reduction. Multivariable regression models were used to assess predictive utility of phenotypic assessments compared to clinical characteristics alone (age, sex, obesity, baseline AHI). RESULTS:Craniofacial structure and flow-volume loops predicted treatment response. Accuracy of the prediction models (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) for each criterion were 0.90 (criterion 1), 0.79 (criterion 2), and 0.78 (criterion 3). However, these prediction models including phenotypic assessments did not provide a statistically significant improvement over clinical predictors only. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal awake phenotyping does not enhance OA treatment outcome prediction. These office-based, awake assessments have limited utility for robust clinical prediction models. Future work should focus on sleep-related assessments. COMMENTARY: A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 1837. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Title: Multimodal phenotyping for the prediction of oral appliance treatment outcome in obstructive sleep apnoea, Identifier: ACTRN12611000409976, URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=336663.
Authors: A S L Chan; R W W Lee; V K Srinivasan; M A Darendeliler; R R Grunstein; P A Cistulli Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Kate Sutherland; Hisashi Takaya; Jin Qian; Peter Petocz; Andrew T Ng; Peter A Cistulli Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Shane A Landry; Simon A Joosten; Danny J Eckert; Amy S Jordan; Scott A Sands; David P White; Atul Malhotra; Andrew Wellman; Garun S Hamilton; Bradley A Edwards Journal: Sleep Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Andrew S L Chan; Richard W W Lee; Vasantha K Srinivasan; M Ali Darendeliler; Peter A Cistulli Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Kentaro Okuno; Yasuhiro Sasao; Kanji Nohara; Takayoshi Sakai; Benjamin T Pliska; Alan A Lowe; C Frank Ryan; Fernanda R Almeida Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Eli Van de Perck; Sara Op de Beeck; Marijke Dieltjens; Anneclaire V Vroegop; Annelies E Verbruggen; Marc Willemen; Johan Verbraecken; Paul H Van de Heyning; Marc J Braem; Olivier M Vanderveken Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Ahmad A Bamagoos; Peter A Cistulli; Kate Sutherland; Melanie Madronio; Danny J Eckert; Lauren Hess; Bradley A Edwards; Andrew Wellman; Scott A Sands Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-11