Oral Appliance Therapy in Patients With Daytime Sleepiness and Snoring or Mild to Moderate Sleep Apnea: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Oral appliances that move the mandible forward during sleep are suggested as treatment for mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea. OBJECTIVE: To test whether an adjustable, custom-made oral appliance improves daytime sleepiness and quality of life in patients with daytime sleepiness an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JAMA internal medicine 2015-08, Vol.175 (8), p.1278-1285
Hauptverfasser: Marklund, Marie, Carlberg, Bo, Forsgren, Lars, Olsson, Tommy, Stenlund, Hans, Franklin, Karl A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:IMPORTANCE: Oral appliances that move the mandible forward during sleep are suggested as treatment for mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea. OBJECTIVE: To test whether an adjustable, custom-made oral appliance improves daytime sleepiness and quality of life in patients with daytime sleepiness and snoring or mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-six patients with daytime sleepiness and an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) lower than 30 were included in a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel trial in Umeå, Sweden, from May 2007 through August 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Four months’ intervention with an oral appliance or a placebo device. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Daytime sleepiness was measured with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, and the Oxford Sleep Resistance (OSLER) test. Quality of life was assessed with the Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ). Secondary outcomes included the apnea-hypopnea index, headaches, symptoms of restless legs, and insomnia. RESULTS: Oral appliance therapy was not associated with improvements in daytime sleepiness from baseline to 4-month follow-up when compared with the placebo device; Epworth score >10: 53% at baseline to 24% at follow-up for the oral appliance group vs 54% at baseline to 40% at follow-up for the placebo device group, P = .11; median (IQR) for Karolinska score ≥7/wk: 10 (8 to 14) at baseline to 7 (4 to 9) at follow-up for the oral appliance group vs 12 (6 to 15) at baseline to 8 (5 to 12) at follow-up for the placebo device group, P = .11; mean between-group difference in OSLER test, −2.4 min (95% CI, −6.3 to 1.4). The mean between-group difference for the total FOSQ score was insignificant (−1.2 [95% CI, −2.5 to 0.1]). No domain of the SF-36 differed significantly between the groups. The AHI was below 5 in 49% of patients using the active appliance and in 11% using placebo, with an odds ratio of 7.8 (95% CI, 2.6-23.5) and a number needed to treat of 3. Snoring (P 
ISSN:2168-6106
2168-6114
2168-6114
DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2051