Randomised study of three non-surgical treatments in mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea. Randomised controlled crossover trial of humidified continuous positive airway pressure in mild obstructive sleep apnoea. Efficacy of positive airway pressure and oral appliance in mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea. A randomized crossover study of an oral appliance vs nasal-continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of mild-moderate obstructive sleep apnea. Comparison of three ways to determine and deliver pressure during nasal CPAP therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea. A long-term randomized, cross-over comparison of auto-titrating and standard nasal continuous airway pressure. Auto-adjusting versus fixed positive pressure therapy in mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea. A pilot trial of a telecommunications system in sleep apnea management. Effect of CPAP therapy on daytime function in patients with mild sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome.
Patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) may be managed with different treatment options. This study compared the effectiveness of three commonly used non-surgical treatment modalities.
                Subjects with mild to moderate OSA were randomised to one of three treatment groups for 10 weeks: conservative measures (sleep hygiene) only, continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) in addition to conservative measures or an oral appliance in addition to conservative measures. All overweight subjects were referred to a weight-reduction class. OSA was assessed by polysomnography. Blood pressure was recorded in the morning and evening in the sleep laboratory. Daytime sleepiness was assessed with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was assessed with the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Sleep Apnoea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI).
                101 subjects with a mean (SEM) apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) of 21.4 (1.1) were randomised to one of the three groups. The severity of sleep-disordered breathing was decreased in the CPAP and oral appliance groups compared with the conservative measures group, and the CPAP group was significantly better than the oral appliance group. Relief from sleepiness was significantly better in the CPAP group. CPAP was also better than the oral appliance or conservative measures in improving the "bodily pain" domain, and better than conservative measures in improving the "physical function" domain of SF-36. Both CPAP and the oral appliance were more effective than conservative measures in improving the SAQLI, although no difference was detected between the CPAP and oral appliance groups. CPAP and the oral appliance significantly lowered the morning diastolic blood pressure compared with baseline values, but there was no difference in the changes in blood pressure between the groups. There was also a linear relationship between the changes in AHI and body weight.
                CPAP produced the best improvement in terms of physiological, symptomatic and HRQOL measures, while the oral appliance was slightly less effective. Weight loss, if achieved, resulted in an improvement in sleep parameters, but weight control alone was not uniformly effective. It is unclear whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), the treatment of choice for severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), is effective at improving outcomes in mild OSA.
                To help define the role of humidified CPAP in mild OSA, a randomised crossover study was undertaken of patients with an apnoea hypopnoea index (AHI) of 5-30/hour. Subjective sleepiness, objective wakefulness, mood, reaction time, and quality of life were measured at baseline, after 3 weeks treatment with humidified CPAP and 3 weeks sham CPAP (2 week washout).
                Twenty nine of 31 enrolled patients (age 25-67 years, seven women, mean (SD) body mass index 31.5 (6) kg/m2) completed the protocol. Humidified CPAP improved polysomnographic indices of OSA and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (2.4 points (95% CI 0.6 to 4.2)). Objective wakefulness (modified maintenance of wakefulness test) showed a trend towards improvement (5.2 minutes (95% CI -0.6 to 11)). Mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), quality of life (SF 36, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire), and reaction times (Psychomotor Vigilance Task) were not improved more than sham CPAP. Compliance with humidified and sham CPAP both averaged 4.9 hours/night. Placebo effects were evident in many outcomes and there was no clear treatment preference.
                Humidified CPAP improves subjective sleepiness and possibly objective wakefulness but not reaction times, quality of life, or mood. These results do not support the routine use of CPAP in all patients with mild OSA, but offers some support for the trialling of CPAP in those with severe sleepiness. The efficacy of currently recommended treatments is uncertain in patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI], 5-30). A group of 114 sleep clinic patients with an AHI of 5-30 have participated in a randomized controlled crossover trial of 3 months of treatment with each of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), a mandibular advancement splint, and a placebo tablet. Outcomes were sleep fragmentation and hypoxemia, daytime sleepiness, quality of life, neurobehavioral function, and blood pressure. Both active treatments improved sleep outcomes, but positive airway pressure had a greater effect. The quality of life, symptoms, and subjective but not objective sleepiness improved to a similar degree with both treatments; however, many of the improvements seen in neuropsychologic function and mood were not better than the placebo effect. Some aspects of nocturnal blood pressure were improved with the splint but not with CPAP. This study has shown that although both CPAP and mandibular advancement splint effectively treated sleep-disordered breathing and sleepiness, the expected response in neurobehavioral function was incomplete. This may be due to the splint having a lesser therapeutic effect and CPAP being poorly tolerated and therefore used less in this patient group. To compare efficacy, side effects, patient compliance, and preference between oral appliance (OA) therapy and nasal-continuous positive airway pressure (N-CPAP) therapy.
                Randomized, prospective, crossover study.
                University hospital and tertiary sleep referral center.
                Twenty-seven unselected patients with mild-moderate obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
                There was a 2-week wash-in and a 2-week wash-out period, and 2 x 4-month treatment periods (OA and N-CPAP). Efficacy, side effects, compliance, and preference were evaluated by a questionnaire and home sleep monitoring.
                Two patients dropped out early in the study and treatment results are presented on the remaining 25 patients. The apnea/hypopnea index was lower with N-CPAP (3.5 +/- 1.6) (mean +/- SD) than with the OA (9.7 +/- 7.3) (p < 0.05). Twelve of the 25 patients who used the OA (48%) were treatment successes (reduction of apnea/hypopnea to <10/h and relief of symptoms), 6 (24%) were compliance failures (unable or unwilling to use the treatment), and 7 (28%) were treatment failures (failure to reduce apnea/hypopnea index to <10/h and/or failure to relieve symptoms). Four people refused to use N-CPAP after using the OA. Thirteen of the 21 patients who used N-CPAP were overall treatment successes (62%), 8 were compliance failures (38%), and there were no treatment failures. Side effects were more common and the patients were less satisfied with N-CPAP (p < 0.005). Seven patients were treatment successes with both treatments, six of these patients preferred OA, and one preferred N-CPAP as a long-term treatment.
                We conclude that OA is an effective treatment in some patients with mild-moderate OSA and is associated with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction than N-CPAP. The simplest method of initiating and maintaining therapeutic continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been established.
                Ninety eight subjects with OSA requiring CPAP treatment (more than 10 dips in oxygen desaturation of >4% per hour of sleep study and Epworth Sleepiness Score (ESS) >9) were randomised prospectively to three different methods of CPAP delivery for 6 months: (1) autotitration pressure throughout; (2) autotitration pressure for 1 week followed by fixed pressure (95th centile) thereafter; and (3) fixed pressure determined by algorithm (based on neck size and dip rate). Patients and investigators were blind to group allocation. One week after initiation the patients were routinely reviewed by sleep nurses. Study assessments took place before starting CPAP treatment and 1 and 6 months after to assess ESS, maintenance of wakefulness test, 24 hour blood pressure, general health (SF-36), and sleep apnoea related quality of life. CPAP internal monitoring data were also collected.
                There were no significant differences in any of the outcome measures or CPAP monitoring data between the three groups. The 95th centile CPAP pressures delivered in the 6 month and 1 week autotitration groups were higher than in the algorithm group, but the median pressures were lowest in the 6 month autotitration group.
                The method of determining CPAP pressure for treatment of moderate to severe OSA makes no significant difference to clinical outcome measures. The autotitration CPAP machine used has no advantage in this setting over simpler methods of pressure determination. This study is a 12-week randomized, cross-over, single-blind comparison of the tolerance, compliance, and symptomatic improvement obtained with standard nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs. an auto-titrating, self-adjusting device (APAP). Sixty newly diagnosed patients, 53 with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and seven with upper airway resistance syndrome were studied. Thirty-nine patients (65%) completed the 24-week protocol. Data were complete in 33. In these 33 patients CPAP and APAP reduced the Epworth Sleepiness score from 15+/-1 (+/-SEM) to 8+/-1 and 9+/-1 respectively (both <0.0001 from baseline but NS between modes). The APAP average pressure was lower than the CPAP pressure, 6.4+/-0.4 and 10.6+/-0.4 cm H20, respectively. The average daily machine use was greater with APAP, 6.0+/-0.3 hrs. versus 5.5+/-0.3 hrs. with CPAP (P < 0.04). The number of days of machine use, and the pattern of use were not different between CPAP and APAP. A higher proportion of patients who did not complete the study was randomized to CPAP for their initial treatment period. This study showed that: 1) CPAP and APAP produced an equivalent improvement in daytime sleepiness, 2) APAP pressure was lower than CPAP pressure, 3) patients wore the APAP device longer during nights they used the pressure support system, and 4) patients who began the study with APAP were more prone to continue treatment. We conclude that APAP was better tolerated and used a greater number of hours than CPAP, but the extent of improvement in excessive daytime sleepiness was similar between the two modes of therapy. To determine if auto-adjusting positive airway pressure (APAP) would be better tolerated on the basis of delivering a lower mean pressure in patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS).
                Patients spent 8 weeks on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 8 weeks on APAP in a randomized crossover design.
                Respiratory Sleep Disorders Unit in a University Hospital and the patient's home.
                Twenty-nine patients with newly diagnosed mild to moderate OSAS (apnoea-hypopnoea frequency of 5-30 events/hour) were studied.
                N/A.
                Overnight polysomnography and Epworth Sleepiness Scale were recorded at baseline and at the end of each treatment period in addition to patient preference for device, side effects, and objective compliance. No differences were found in polysomnographic variables or Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores between the 2 treatment modes, but all variables were significantly improved from baseline values. Mean APAP pressure levels were significantly lower than CPAP (6.3 +/- 1.4 vs 8.1 +/- 1.7 cm H2O, p < .001). Patient compliance was similar with both treatments. More patients requiring higher fixed pressure (> or = 8cm H2O) preferred APAP, whereas those requiring lower pressure (< 8 cm H2O) preferred CPAP (p = .03). Follow-up after 18 months of therapy indicated that 76% of subjects continued to be compliant, with a nightly use of 5.8 +/- 1.9 hours per night, despite high levels of minor side effects.
                APAP and CPAP are equally effective in managing patients with mild to moderate OSAS, but device preference may be influenced by fixed pressure requirements. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective therapy for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), although many patients have difficulty adhering to this therapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of totally automated telephone technology in improving adherence to prescribed CPAP therapy.
                This pilot study was a randomized clinical trial in 30 patients being started on CPAP therapy for OSAS. Patients were randomly assigned to use of a computer telephone system designed to improve CPAP adherence (telephone-linked communications for CPAP [TLC-CPAP]) in addition to usual care (n = 15) or to usual care alone (n = 15) for a period of 2 months. TLC-CPAP is a computer-based system that monitors patients' self-reported behavior and provides education and reinforcement through a structured dialogue.
                A sleep symptoms checklist and the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire were administered at study entry and at 2-month follow up. Hours of CPAP use at effective mask pressure were measured by the CPAP device, stored in its memory, and retrieved at the 2-month visit.
                At 2 months, patients randomized to TLC-CPAP had fewer reported sleep-related symptoms (9.4 vs. 13.4, P = 0.047) than those receiving usual care. The average nightly CPAP use in the TLC-CPAP group was 4.4 hours compared with 2.9 hours (P = 0.076) in the usual-care group.
                This pilot study suggests that patients with OSAS started on CPAP and a concurrently administered automated education and counseling system had better CPAP adherence and better control of OSAS symptoms. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective treatment in patients with moderate and severe sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome (SAHS), but the minimum illness severity at which patients obtain benefit from CPAP is unclear. A study was therefore undertaken to investigate whether CPAP improves symptoms and daytime function in patients with mild SAHS.
                Sixteen consecutively recruited patients with mild SAHS (5.0-14.9 apnoeas + hypopnoeas per hour slept and two or more symptoms of SAHS) participated in a prospective placebo controlled randomised crossover trial to assess the effects of CPAP on symptoms and daytime function. Patients spent four weeks on placebo and four weeks on CPAP, undergoing assessments of sleepiness, symptoms, cognitive performance, and well being on the last day of each treatment. Data from the placebo and CPAP assessments were compared.
                The mean (SE) objective effective use of CPAP was 2.8 (0.7) hours per night. Significant improvements in symptom score (-1.7 (0.5), p < 0.01), mental flexibility (-14 (5) seconds, p = 0.02), and depression rating (-1.6 (0.8), p = 0.03) on CPAP were observed. However, no significant differences in subjective or objective sleepiness were found. Ten of the 16 patients preferred CPAP and opted to continue with this treatment, although this proportion was non-significant (p > 0.4). The eight patients with best CPAP use showed an additional CPAP related improvement in quality of life (-4.4 (1.8), p = 0.03). Those who complied better with CPAP therapy also had a higher average microarousal frequency (p < 0.01) and apnoea+hypopnoea index (p = 0.02) than the poorer compliers.
                The results of this study provide evidence for improvements in symptoms and daytime function for patients with mild SAHS treated with CPAP.
CPAP is effective in reducing symptoms of sleepiness and improving quality of life measures in people with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). It is more effective than oral appliances in reducing respiratory disturbances in these people but subjective outcomes are more equivocal. Certain people tend to prefer oral appliances to CPAP where both are effective. This could be because they offer a more convenient way of controlling OSA. Short-term data indicate that CPAP leads to lower blood pressure than control. Long-term data are required for all outcomes in order to determine whether the initial benefits seen in short-term clinical trials persist.