OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to compare the best long-term treatment, mandibular advancement device (MAD) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for patients with mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in improving excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, mood, sustained attention, and quality of life. METHODS: This study was a single-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial with controls. The sample was composed of individuals between 18 and 65 years of age with a body mass index of < 35 kg/m2 and apnea/hypopnea index above five and less than 15. Participants were submitted to physical examination, polysomnography, and the following questionnaires: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Berlin Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Stanford Sleepiness Scale, Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Beck Depression Inventory. They were also presented with the following tests: maintenance of wakefulness test and psychomotor vigilance task. RESULTS: Of 79 patients, 25 were in the MAD group, 31 in the CPAP group, and 23 in the control group. Polysomnographic parameters were best normalized with CPAP compared with MAD. Fatigue was improved in the MAD and CPAP groups, with no difference between these treatments. Quality of life was also improved with both treatments, but CPAP was superior to MAD. Daytime sleepiness, mood, and sustained attention showed no difference with the interventions. Greater adherence was obtained with MAD patients than with CPAP measured by hours of use. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CPAP was better at normalizing polysomnographic parameters and improving quality of life in patients with mild OSA. Both treatments improved fatigue with no difference between the two treatments. Neither treatment improved daytime sleepiness, mood or sustained attention. CLINICAL TRIALS DATABASE: NTC01461486.
OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to compare the best long-term treatment, mandibular advancement device (MAD) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for patients with mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in improving excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, mood, sustained attention, and quality of life. METHODS: This study was a single-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial with controls. The sample was composed of individuals between 18 and 65 years of age with a body mass index of < 35 kg/m2 and apnea/hypopnea index above five and less than 15. Participants were submitted to physical examination, polysomnography, and the following questionnaires: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Berlin Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Stanford Sleepiness Scale, Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Beck Depression Inventory. They were also presented with the following tests: maintenance of wakefulness test and psychomotor vigilance task. RESULTS: Of 79 patients, 25 were in the MAD group, 31 in the CPAP group, and 23 in the control group. Polysomnographic parameters were best normalized with CPAP compared with MAD. Fatigue was improved in the MAD and CPAP groups, with no difference between these treatments. Quality of life was also improved with both treatments, but CPAP was superior to MAD. Daytime sleepiness, mood, and sustained attention showed no difference with the interventions. Greater adherence was obtained with MAD patients than with CPAP measured by hours of use. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CPAP was better at normalizing polysomnographic parameters and improving quality of life in patients with mild OSA. Both treatments improved fatigue with no difference between the two treatments. Neither treatment improved daytime sleepiness, mood or sustained attention. CLINICAL TRIALS DATABASE: NTC01461486.
Authors: Marie Marklund; Bo Carlberg; Lars Forsgren; Tommy Olsson; Hans Stenlund; Karl A Franklin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ghizlane Aarab; Frank Lobbezoo; Martijn W Heymans; Hans L Hamburger; Machiel Naeije Journal: Respiration Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: T E Weaver; A M Laizner; L K Evans; G Maislin; D K Chugh; K Lyon; P L Smith; A R Schwartz; S Redline; A I Pack; D F Dinges Journal: Sleep Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Clete A Kushida; Deborah A Nichols; Tyson H Holmes; Stuart F Quan; James K Walsh; Daniel J Gottlieb; Richard D Simon; Christian Guilleminault; David P White; James L Goodwin; Paula K Schweitzer; Eileen B Leary; Pamela R Hyde; Max Hirshkowitz; Sylvan Green; Linda K McEvoy; Cynthia Chan; Alan Gevins; Gary G Kay; Daniel A Bloch; Tami Crabtree; William C Dement Journal: Sleep Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Maree Barnes; R Douglas McEvoy; Siobhan Banks; Natalie Tarquinio; Christopher G Murray; Norman Vowles; Robert J Pierce Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-06-16 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Clete A Kushida; Timothy I Morgenthaler; Michael R Littner; Cathy A Alessi; Dennis Bailey; Jack Coleman; Leah Friedman; Max Hirshkowitz; Sheldon Kapen; Milton Kramer; Teofilo Lee-Chiong; Judith Owens; Jeffrey P Pancer Journal: Sleep Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Terri E Weaver; Cristina Mancini; Greg Maislin; Jacqueline Cater; Bethany Staley; J Richard Landis; Kathleen A Ferguson; Charles F P George; David A Schulman; Harly Greenberg; David M Rapoport; Joyce A Walsleben; Teofilo Lee-Chiong; Indira Gurubhagavatula; Samuel T Kuna Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 21.405