Oral APPLIANCES AND NASAL CPAP ARE EQUAL IN EFFECTIVENESS ACCORDING TO NEW ARTICLE IN RESPIRATION.

A recent article " Appliance Therapy versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial" in Respiration compared oral appliance therapy and nasal CPAP therapy in treating mild to moderate sleep apnea. The article looked at carefully controlled studies in which both the CPAP and the oral appliances were carefully titrated. The article concluded that "There is no clinically relevant difference between MAD and nCPAP in the treatment of mild/moderate OSA when both treatment modalities are titrated objectively."

It is important to note that the article clearly states that treatment is equal when there is objective titration of the oral appliances. I have strongly been recommending titration on all oral appliance therapy for over ten years. This is trtuly a landmark study because while CPAP has always been considered "the gold standard for treatment of sleep apnea" that statement is no longer true for mild to moderate sleep apnea.

This study did not cover severe sleep apnea therefore CPAP is still considered the gold standard of treatment for severe sleep apnea and oral appliances are an alternative for patients who do not tolerate CPAP.

The major problem with CPAP has always been low compliance. A recent study showed 60% of patients do not tolerate CPAP treatment. If compliance is factored in then it is clear that oral appliances are now the "Gold Standard" of treatment for mild to moderate sleep apnea.



PubMed abstract:
Respiration. 2010 Oct 20. [Epub ahead of print]ral Appliance Therapy versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.
Aarab G, Lobbezoo F, Hamburger HL, Naeije M.

Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam, Research Institute MOVE, University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: Previous randomized controlled trials have addressed the efficacy of mandibular advancement devices (MADs) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Their common control condition, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP), was frequently found to be superior to MAD therapy. However, in most of these studies, only nCPAP was titrated objectively but not MAD. To enable an unbiased comparison between both treatment modalities, the MAD should be titrated objectively as well. Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the treatment effects of a titrated MAD with those of nCPAP and an intra-oral placebo device. Methods: Sixty-four mild/moderate patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA; 52.0 ± 9.6 years) were randomly assigned to three parallel groups: MAD, nCPAP and placebo device. From all patients, two polysomnographic recordings were obtained at the hospital: one before treatment and one after approximately 6 months of treatment. Results: The change in the apnea-hypopnea index (ΔAHI) between baseline and therapy evaluation differed significantly between the three therapy groups (ANCOVA; p = 0.000). No differences in the ΔAHI were found between the MAD and nCPAP therapy (p = 0.092), whereas the changes in AHI in these groups were significantly larger than those in the placebo group (p = 0.000 and 0.002, respectively). Conclusion: There is no clinically relevant difference between MAD and nCPAP in the treatment of mild/moderate OSA when both treatment modalities are titrated objectively.

Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
PMID: 20962502 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]