Dataset Information

Objective measurement of compliance during oral appliance therapy for sleep-disordered breathing.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Oral appliance (OA) therapy is increasingly prescribed as a non-continuous positive airway pressure treatment modality for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). Although OA therapy is reported to be efficacious for the treatment of SDB, data on compliance remain limited to self-report.

Methods

In this 3-month prospective clinical trial, the main outcome was to assess the safety and feasibility of an objective measurement of compliance during OA therapy using an embedded microsensor thermometer with on-chip integrated readout electronics in 51 consecutive patients with an established diagnosis of SDB (AHI 18.0 ± 11.9/h; age 47 ± 10 y; BMI 26.6 ± 4.0 kg/m(2); men/women: 31/20). Patients were unaware of the purpose of the study.

Results

No microsensor-related adverse events were recorded. In addition, no problems were encountered during the readout of the compliance data. Out of 51 microsensors, one had a technical defect and was lost to follow-up. In this study, the overall objective mean rate of OA use was 6.6 ± 1.3 h per day with a regular OA users' rate of 82% at the 3-month follow-up. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between objective and self-reported OA compliance data in this study. Measurement of the objective OA compliance allowed us to calculate the mean disease alleviation (MDA) as the product of objective compliance and therapeutic efficacy. MDA serves as a measure of the overall therapeutic effectiveness, and turned out to be 51.1%.

Conclusions

The results illustrate the safety and feasibility of objective measurement of OA compliance. The objective measurement of OA compliance allows for calculation of the MDA.

SUBMITTER: Vanderveken OM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3534260 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Objective measurement of compliance during oral appliance therapy for sleep-disordered breathing.

Vanderveken Olivier M OM Dieltjens Marijke M Wouters Kristien K De Backer Wilfried A WA Van de Heyning Paul H PH Braem Marc J MJ

Thorax 20120919 1

<h4>Background</h4>Oral appliance (OA) therapy is increasingly prescribed as a non-continuous positive airway pressure treatment modality for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). Although OA therapy is reported to be efficacious for the treatment of SDB, data on compliance remain limited to self-report.<h4>Methods</h4>In this 3-month prospective clinical trial, the main outcome was to assess the safety and feasibility of an objective measurement of compliance during OA therapy using an embedded mic ...[more]

PMID: 22993169

Similar Datasets

Project description:Between 1982 and 2006, there were 89 distinct publications dealing with oral appliance therapy involving a total of 3,027 patients, which reported results of sleep studies performed with and without the appliance. These studies, which constitute a very heterogeneous group in terms of methodology and patient population, are reviewed and the results summarized. This review focused on the following outcomes: sleep apnea (i.e. reduction in the apnea/hypopnea index or respiratory disturbance index), ability of oral appliances to reduce snoring, effect of oral appliances on daytime function, comparison of oral appliances with other treatments (continuous positive airway pressure and surgery), side effects, dental changes (overbite and overjet), and long-term compliance. We found that the success rate, defined as the ability of the oral appliances to reduce apnea/hypopnea index to less than 10, is 54%. The response rate, defined as at least 50% reduction in the initial apnea/hypopnea index (although it still remained above 10), is 21%. When only the results of randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled studies are considered, the success and response rates are 50% and 14%, respectively. Snoring was reduced by 45%. In the studies comparing oral appliances to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or to uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP), an appliance reduced initial AHI by 42%, CPAP reduced it by 75%, and UPPP by 30%. The majority of patients prefer using oral appliance than CPAP. Use of oral appliances improves daytime function somewhat; the Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) dropped from 11.2 to 7.8 in 854 patients. A summary of the follow-up compliance data shows that at 30 months, 56-68% of patients continue to use oral appliance. Side effects are relatively minor but frequent. The most common ones are excessive salivation and teeth discomfort. Efficacy and side effects depend on the type of appliance, degree of protrusion, vertical opening, and other settings. We conclude that oral appliances, although not as effective as CPAP in reducing sleep apnea, snoring, and improving daytime function, have a definite role in the treatment of snoring and sleep apnea.

Dataset Information

Objective measurement of compliance during oral appliance therapy for sleep-disordered breathing.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Objective measurement of compliance during oral appliance therapy for sleep-disordered breathing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets