Clemens Heiser1, Armin Steffen2, Benedikt Hofauer1, Reena Mehra3, Patrick J Strollo4, Olivier M Vanderveken5, Joachim T Maurer6,7. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 München, Germany. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany. 3. Department of Sleep Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 4. Department of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. 5. Multidisciplinary Sleep Disorders Centre, Antwerp University Hospital, 2650 Edegem, Antwerp, Belgium. 6. Department of ORL-HNS, Division of Sleep Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University Heidelberg, 68167 Mannheim, Germany. 7. Department of Information Technology, University of Applied Sciences, 68163 Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several single-arm prospective studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of upper airway stimulation (UAS) for obstructive sleep apnea. There is limited evidence from randomized, controlled trials of the therapy benefit in terms of OSA burden and its symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial to examine the effect of therapeutic stimulation (Stim) versus sham stimulation (Sham) on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). We also examined the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) on sleep architecture. We analyzed crossover outcome measures after two weeks using repeated measures models controlling for treatment order. RESULTS: The study randomized 89 participants 1:1 to Stim (45) versus Sham (44). After one week, the AHI response rate was 76.7% with Stim and 29.5% with Sham, a difference of 47.2% (95% CI: 24.4 to 64.9, p < 0.001) between the two groups. Similarly, ESS was 7.5 ± 4.9 with Stim and 12.0 ± 4.3 with Sham, with a significant difference of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.1 to 6.1) between the two groups. The crossover phase showed no carryover effect. Among 86 participants who completed both phases, the treatment difference between Stim vs. Sham for AHI was -15.5 (95% CI -18.3 to -12.8), for ESS it was -3.3 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.2), and for FOSQ it was 2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). UAS effectively treated both REM and NREM sleep disordered breathing. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with sham stimulation, therapeutic UAS reduced OSA severity, sleepiness symptoms, and improved quality of life among participants with moderate-to-severe OSA.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Several single-arm prospective studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of upper airway stimulation (UAS) for obstructive sleep apnea. There is limited evidence from randomized, controlled trials of the therapy benefit in terms of OSA burden and its symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial to examine the effect of therapeutic stimulation (Stim) versus sham stimulation (Sham) on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). We also examined the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) on sleep architecture. We analyzed crossover outcome measures after two weeks using repeated measures models controlling for treatment order. RESULTS: The study randomized 89 participants 1:1 to Stim (45) versus Sham (44). After one week, the AHI response rate was 76.7% with Stim and 29.5% with Sham, a difference of 47.2% (95% CI: 24.4 to 64.9, p < 0.001) between the two groups. Similarly, ESS was 7.5 ± 4.9 with Stim and 12.0 ± 4.3 with Sham, with a significant difference of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.1 to 6.1) between the two groups. The crossover phase showed no carryover effect. Among 86 participants who completed both phases, the treatment difference between Stim vs. Sham for AHI was -15.5 (95% CI -18.3 to -12.8), for ESS it was -3.3 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.2), and for FOSQ it was 2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). UAS effectively treated both REM and NREM sleep disordered breathing. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with sham stimulation, therapeutic UAS reduced OSA severity, sleepiness symptoms, and improved quality of life among participants with moderate-to-severe OSA.
Authors: Ofer Jacobowitz; Alan R Schwartz; Eric G Lovett; Giovanni Ranuzzi; Atul Malhotra Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2022-05-22 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Armin Steffen; Clemens Heiser; Wolfgang Galetke; Simon-Dominik Herkenrath; Joachim T Maurer; Eck Günther; Boris A Stuck; Holger Woehrle; Jan Löhler; Winfried Randerath Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 2.503