Randomised study of three non-surgical treatments in mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea. A randomized crossover study of an oral appliance vs nasal-continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of mild-moderate obstructive sleep apnea. Randomised controlled crossover trial of humidified continuous positive airway pressure in mild obstructive sleep apnoea. Nasal-CPAP, surgery, and conservative management for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. A randomized study. Fixed and autoadjusting continuous positive airway pressure treatments are not similar in reducing cardiovascular risk factors in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Improving compliance with nasal CPAP and vigilance in older adults with OAHS. A randomized trial of auto-titrating CPAP and fixed CPAP in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea. Increased adherence to CPAP with a group cognitive behavioral treatment intervention: a randomized trial. Positional treatment vs continuous positive airway pressure in patients with positional obstructive sleep apnea 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. 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. 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. To assess separately the effectiveness and safety of nasal-continuous positive airway pressure (N-CPAP) and that of surgery in comparison to conservative management in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). DESIGN. A randomized study with 1-year follow-up.
                A university hospital acting as a referral center for OSAS.
                Symptomatic patients with OSAS (72 male and 4 female patients aged 18 to 65 years), who had oxygen desaturations in the overnight recording.
                After the initial diagnostic workup, patients were considered to be candidates for either N-CPAP (44 patients) or surgical treatment (uvulopalatopharyngoplasty [UPPP] with or without mandibular osteotomy) (32 patients). Within the groups, the patients were then randomized to either the assigned treatment or conservative management.
                The number of nocturnal oxygen desaturation events of 4% or more per hour in bed (ODI4); daytime somnolence; side effects.
                N-CPAP Group: Compliance with N-CPAP therapy at 1 year was 13 of 21. The most common reason for noncompliance was general intolerance of CPAP. All compliant patients had a normal ODI4 ( < 10), whereas 1 of 20 of their control subjects had a normal finding. Patients receiving active treatment were significantly less somnolent than their control subjects at 1 year (p < 0.05). SURGERY GROUP: At 1 year, 7 of 18 of the surgically treated and 1 of 14 of the conservatively treated patients had a normal ODI4 (p < 0.001). Daytime somnolence was significantly less severe in the surgically treated patients compared with their control subjects (p < 0.001) both at 3 and 12 months. The overall postoperative complication rate was 22%.
                N-CPAP is an effective therapy for OSAS, but compliance is a problem. Surgical therapy (UPPP with or without mandibular osteotomy) needs further evaluation. A strong association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and the risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases has been reported. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first-line therapy for OSA, able not only to reduce daytime sleepiness but also to improve cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes. Autoadjusting CPAP (APAP), an alternative treatment to CPAP, can reduce OSA symptoms while increasing long-term CPAP compliance without the high costs of CPAP titration. However, no data are available on the effects of APAP on cardiovascular risk factors
                We performed standard full polysomnography; obtained plasma levels of glucose, insulin, and C-reactive protein (CRP); and measured systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in 31 patients with newly diagnosed, severe OSA. After standard CPAP titration, all subjects were randomized to CPAP or APAP treatment. Measurements were obtained at baseline and after 3 months of treatment.
                The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and severity of OSA. SBP, DBP, heart rate (HR), homeostasis model assessment index (HOMA-IR), and CRP were similar in the two groups. After 3 months of treatment, BMI, HR, and compliance to therapy were also comparable. OSA indexes were significantly reduced in both groups. Significant reductions in SBP, DBP, and HOMA-IR were observed in the CPAP group but not in the APAP group, while CRP plasma levels were similarly reduced.
                Our results suggest that CPAP and APAP, despite significant effects on OSA indexes and symptoms, do not improve cardiovascular risk factors in the same fashion. The present study examined the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral intervention at improving compliance with CPAP and vigilance in older adults with obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). Participants included 12 subjects who were randomized into one of two groups controlling for age, education, disease severity, and vigilance. The experimental group received two 45-min sessions designed to educate subjects on the consequences of OSAHS and the efficacy of CPAP. The control group received the same extent of therapist contact but did not receive information on OSAHS or CPAP. All subjects were administered a test of vigilance both before and after the study. Compliance data were collected using CPAP devices with internal microprocessors at were read at 1, 4, and 12 weeks after treatment initiation. The results showed that the experimental condition did not enhance compliance after 1 week of treatment but did so by the 12-week follow-up. Subjects in the experimental condition had a run time of 3.2-h per night longer than did those in the control group. Those using CPAP more regularly at 12 weeks also showed greater improvement on vigilance at follow-up. Performance on vigilance testing before the introduction of CPAP was predictive of CPAP use at 12 weeks. In conclusion, a modest cognitive-behavioral intervention may substantially increase CPAP use and vigilance in older adults. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) remains the treatment of choice for obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea (OSAH). Auto-titrating CPAP (APAP) devices automatically adjust pressure and may improve treatment compliance compared to fixed CPAP (F-CPAP).
                Randomized, prospective, single-blind, crossover trial to compare efficacy, side effects, compliance, patient satisfaction and preference between APAP and F-CPAP therapy in patients with moderate to severe OSAH. There were two treatment periods of 4 weeks each (APAP and F-CPAP), separated by a 2-week washout period.
                Ten CPAP-naive OSAH patients (9 males) completed the study. They had Mean +/- SD age of 44.9 +/- 9.7 years; body mass index of 35.9 +/- 12.9 kg/m2 and apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) of 47.2 +/- 35.6. Both forms of therapy were equally effective in improving the symptoms and in reducing the AHI. Both forms of therapy were associated with frequent side effects and had similar patient compliance. At the end of the study, more patients (6-1) preferred F-CPAP to A-CPAP therapy.
                A-PAP was as effective as F-CPAP in the treatment of OSAH but was not associated with fewer side effects, better compliance, better satisfaction or increased patient preference. To improve adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in participants with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) using a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention.
                A randomized controlled trial.
                A major teaching hospital in Sydney (2005).
                One hundred individuals (96 men), ranging in age from 32 to 81 years, diagnosed with OSA.
                Two 1-hour CBT interventions (including a video of real CPAP users) plus treatment as usual (mask fitting and information) or treatment as usual only.
                Hours of CPAP usage was assessed at 7 nights and 28 nights. Adherence was defined as usage at least 4 hours per night. Questionnaires measuring self-efficacy, social support, and expectancy (mediators of adherence) were given after intervention or after usual treatment. A higher adherence to CPAP therapy was found in the CBT group (2.9 hours difference) relative to treatment as usual (P < 0.001) at 28 days. Only 4 participants in the CBT group did not initiate treatments after their titration study, compared with 15 in the treatment as usual group (P < 0.02). The CBT group had significantly higher scores for self-efficacy (P < 0.001) and social support P < 0.008) but not for expectancy.
                The CBT intervention resulted in both increased adherence and "uptake" of CPAP and therefore would be expected to reduce the social, economic, and health-related consequences of untreated OSA. The aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and positional treatment in the management of positional obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), using objective outcome measures.
                A prospective, randomized, single blind crossover comparison of CPAP and positional treatment for 2 weeks each.
                A university teaching hospital.
                Thirteen patients with positional OSA, aged (mean+/-SD) 51+/-9 years, with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 17+/-8.
                (1) Daily Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores; (2) overnight polysomnography, an objective assessment of sleep quality and AHI; (3) maintenance of wakefulness testing; (4) psychometric test battery; (5) mood scales; (6) quality-of-life questionnaires; and (7) individual patient's treatment preference.
                Positional treatment was highly effective in reducing time spent supine (median, 0; range, 0 to 32 min). The AHI was lower (mean difference, 6.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2 to 10.2; p = 0.007), and the minimum oxygen saturation was higher (4%; 95% CI, 1% to 8%; p = 0.02) on CPAP as compared with positional treatment. There was no significant difference, however, in sleep architecture, Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores, maintenance of wakefulness testing sleep latency, psychometric test performance, mood scales, or quality-of-life measures.
                Positional treatment and CPAP have similar efficacy in the treatment of patients with positional OSA.
There is increasing evidence suggesting that OA improves subjective sleepiness and sleep disordered breathing compared with a control. CPAP appears to be more effective in improving sleep disordered breathing than OA. The difference in symptomatic response between these two treatments is not significant, although it is not possible to exclude an effect in favour of either therapy. Until there is more definitive evidence on the effectiveness of OA in relation to CPAP, with regard to symptoms and long-term complications, it would appear to be appropriate to recommend OA therapy to patients with mild symptomatic OSAH, and those patients who are unwilling or unable to tolerate CPAP therapy. Future research should recruit patients with more severe symptoms of sleepiness, to establish whether the response to therapy differs between subgroups in terms of quality of life, symptoms and persistence with usage. Long-term data on cardiovascular health are required.