Mandibular advancement appliances and obstructive sleep apnoea: a randomized clinical trial. A short-term controlled trial of an adjustable oral appliance for the treatment of mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea. Management for the children with otitis media with effusion in the tertiary hospital. Intranasal flunisolide treatment in children with adenoidal hypertrophy. Response profiles to fluticasone and montelukast in mild-to-moderate persistent childhood asthma. Predicting short term response to anti-inflammatory therapy in young children with asthma. Intranasal budesonide treatment for children with mild obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Intranasal corticosteroid therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea in patients with co-existing rhinitis. The efficacy of oral steroids in the treatment of persistent otitis media with effusion.
This randomized placebo-controlled cross-over trial assessed the effectiveness of a mandibular advancement appliance (MAA) in managing obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Twenty-one adults, with confirmed OSA, were provided with a maxillary placebo appliance and a MAA for 4-6 weeks each, in a randomized order. Questionnaires at baseline and after each appliance assessed bed-partners' reports of snoring severity (loudness and number of nights per week), and patients' daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Score, ESS). The Apnoea Hypopnoea Index (AHI) and Oxygen Desaturation Index (ODI) were measured at baseline and with each appliance during single night sleep studies. Seventy-nine per cent of subjects wore their MAA for at least 4 hours at night. Sixty-eight per cent of subjects wore their MAA for 6-7 nights per week. Excessive salivation was the most commonly reported complication. One subject was unable to tolerate the MAA and withdrew from the study. Among the remaining 20 subjects, the MAA produced significantly lower AHI and ODI values than the placebo. However, although the reported frequency and loudness of snoring and the ESS values were lower with the MAA than the placebo, these differences were not statistically significant. When wearing the MAA, 35 per cent of the OSA subjects had a reduction in the pre-treatment ODI to 10 or less, while 33 per cent had an AHI of 10 or less. The MAA was less effective in the subjects with the most severe OSA (pre-treatment ODI > 50 and/or pre-treatment AHI > 50). Although oral appliances are effective in some patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), they are not universally effective. A novel anterior mandibular positioner (AMP) has been developed with an adjustable hinge that allows progressive advancement of the mandible. The objective of this prospective crossover study was to compare efficacy, side effects, patient compliance, and preference between AMP and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in patients with symptomatic mild to moderate OSA.
                Twenty four patients of mean (SD) age 44.0 (10.6) years were recruited with a mean (SD) body mass index of 32.0 (8.2) kg/m2, Epworth sleepiness score 10.7 (3.4), and apnoea/hypopnoea index 26.8 (11.9)/hour. There was a two week wash-in and a two week wash-out period and two treatment periods (AMP and nCPAP) each of four months. Efficacy, side effects, compliance, and preference were evaluated by a questionnaire and home sleep monitoring.
                One patient dropped out early in the study and three refused to cross over so treatment results are presented on the remaining 20 patients. The apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) was lower with nasal CPAP 4.2 (2.2)/hour than with the AMP 13.6 (14.5)/hour (p < 0.01). Eleven of the 20 patients (55%) who used the AMP were treatment successes (reduction of AHI to < 10/hour and relief of symptoms), one (5%) was a compliance failure (unable or unwilling to use the treatment), and eight (40%) were treatment failures (failure to reduce AHI to < 10/hour and/or failure to relieve symptoms). Fourteen of the 20 patients (70%) who used nCPAP were treatment successes, six (30%) were compliance failures, and there were no treatment failures. There was greater patient satisfaction with the AMP (p < 0.01) than with nCPAP but no difference in reported side effects or compliance.
                AMP is an effective treatment in some patients with mild to moderate OSA and is associated with greater patient satisfaction than nCPAP. Recently, new evidence-based recommendations have been introduced for diagnosing and managing otitis media with effusion (OME) in children. However, there are some difficulties to follow the general guidelines in the tertiary hospitals. The purpose is to evaluate the efficiency of antibiotics or antihistamines for treatment of children with OME in the tertiary hospital with a randomized prospective clinical study.
                Eighty-four children with OME who had been diagnosed in the tertiary hospital were randomized to receive 5 different medications for 2 weeks. We prescribed antibiotics (amoxicillin-clavulanate syrup) in Group I (n=16), antibiotics/steroids (prednisolone) in Group II (n=18), antibiotics/antihistamines (ebastine) in Group III (n=15), antibiotics/steroids/antihistamines in Group IV (n=17), and mucolytics (ivy leaf extract) in Group V (n=17) for control. We followed-up children every 2 weeks and evaluated the state of OME at 3 months.
                Thirty six (42.9%) of 84 children were resolved within average 6.9 weeks after the treatments. Thirty-six (42.9%) were treated with ventilation tube insertion and 12 patients (14.3%) were observed. There was no difference in the resolution rates of OME among the five different protocols (P>0.05). There was no difference in the resolution rates among groups who used steroids, antihistamines, steroids and antihistamines, or other medications to manage 42 children with allergies (P>0.05).
                In the tertiary hospital, the cure rate of children with OME was not as high as well-known, and antibiotics or anti-allergic medications were not more effective than control. We may, therefore, need any other guidelines which are different from the previous evidence-based recommendations, including early operation in the tertiary hospitals. Adenoidal hypertrophy (AH) represents one of the most frequent indications for surgery in children and it has been proposed that treatment with intranasal corticosteroids can decrease the size of AH. Therefore, the aim of the study is to evaluate the effect of the use of intranasal flunisolide among children affected by AH. 178 children with AH were evaluated in this randomised and controlled study. Inclusion criteria for the study required that each patient had to have a III or IV degree of AH on the initial endoscopic examination. Children were treated with intranasal flunisolide or isotonic saline solution for 8 weeks. After treatment, endoscopy was performed to re-evaluate AH degree. Flunisolide treatment was associated with significant (p less than 0.04) reduction of AH degree. There was moreover a consistent reduction of children (46 out of 58) proposed to adenoidectomy. No clinically important adverse events were reported. In conclusion, this preliminary study demonstrates that an 8-week treatment with intranasal flunisolide is significantly associated with reduction of AH, thus preventing the recurrence to adenoidectomy, and is safe. Outcome data are needed to base recommendations for controller asthma medication use in school-aged children.
                We sought to determine intraindividual and interindividual response profiles and predictors of response to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).
                An ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 mug twice daily), and an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly, age dependent), were administered to children ages 6 to 17 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma using only as-needed bronchodilators in a multicenter, double-masked, 2-sequence, 16-week crossover trial. Clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to these controllers were evaluated.
                Improvements in most clinical asthma control measures occurred with both controllers. However, clinical outcomes (asthma control days [ACDs], the validated Asthma Control Questionnaire, and albuterol use), pulmonary responses (FEV(1)/forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow variability, morning peak expiratory flow, and measures of impedance), and inflammatory biomarkers (exhaled nitric oxide [eNO]) improved significantly more with fluticasone than with montelukast treatment. eNO was both a predictor of ACDs (P = .011) and a response indicator (P = .003) in discriminating the difference in ACD response between fluticasone and montelukast.
                The more favorable clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to an ICS than to an LTRA provide pediatric-based group evidence to support ICSs as the preferred first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in children. eNO, as a predictor of response, might help to identify individual children not receiving controller medication who achieve a greater improvement in ACDs with an ICS compared with an LTRA. Currently available anti-inflammatory treatment for young children with asthma includes inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and the leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) montelukast.
                To evaluate potential biomarkers of predicting short-term (6-week) response to ICS and LTRAs in children with asthma.
                A total of 102 children aged 4 to 7 years with episodic asthma were enrolled in an open labelled single-centre study. Biomarkers and asthma characteristics were evaluated as predictors of treatment. Of 102 patients 45 became symptomatic during observation and were randomised to treatment either to montelukast or fluticasone for 6 weeks.
                Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) increased with both treatments: FEV1 at randomisation was 90.2% and after therapy 106.8% with fluticasone vs. 90.8% and 103.7% for montelukast, respectively, showing that montelukast and fluticasone were equally effective in this age group (p = 0.44). Strong correlations to a favourable treatment response were pre-bronchodilatory FEV1 (p < 0.001) and airway reversibility (p = 0.04) at time of randomisation. None of the other biomarkers (methacholine testing, exhaled nitric oxide [eNO], presence of allergy, total Immunoglobulin E [IgE], cumulative specific IgE, eosinophils and parental smoking) were predictive.
                Despite the small sample size and the open-label design, the study suggests that the use of pre-bronchodilatory FEV1 and airway reversibility appears to be a good indicator of short-term anti-inflammatory therapy in young children with asthma. Intranasal corticosteroids have been advanced as a nonsurgical therapeutic alternative for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, particularly for patients with mild disease, and aims at reducing the size of hypertrophic adenotonsillar tissue.
                Of 71 possible candidates, 62 children with polysomnographically diagnosed mild obstructive sleep apnea syndrome were recruited onto a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial of intranasal budesonide (32 microg per nostril at bedtime) or placebo for 6 weeks followed by an additional 6-week treatment in the alternative treatment arm after allowing for a 2-week washout period. Polysomnographic assessment and radiographs for assessment of adenoid size were performed after completion of each phase.
                There were significant improvements in both polysomnographic measures (sleep latency, slow-wave sleep, and rapid-eye-movement sleep), in the magnitude of respiratory disturbance (apnea/hypopnea index, nadir pulse oxygen saturation), and in adenoid size among the 48 children who completed the treatment phase compared with 32 children who received placebo in their initial arm, with normalization of sleep measures in 54.1% of the treated children. Furthermore, discontinuation of treatment for 8 weeks for 25 children revealed a sustained duration of the initial treatment effect.
                A 6-week treatment with intranasal budesonide effectively reduced the severity of mild obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and the magnitude of the underlying adenoidal hypertrophy, and this effect persisted for at least 8 weeks after cessation of therapy. These findings justify the use of topical steroids as the initial therapeutic option in otherwise healthy children with mild obstructive sleep apnea. Increased nasal airflow resistance (NAR) may contribute to the pathophysiology of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) but studies investigating the effects of relieving nasal obstruction in OSAS have produced differing results. There are no reports of intranasal corticosteroid therapy in adult OSAS patients with reversible nasal obstruction.
                We evaluated an intranasal corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate, in 24 consecutive snorers with associated rhinitis using a randomised, placebo controlled, crossover design. Patients underwent polysomnography, snoring noise, and NAR measurements at baseline and after each 4 week treatment period.
                Twenty three patients completed the protocol and were divided into an apnoeic group (group A; 13 patients) and a non-apnoeic snoring group (group S; 10 patients) based on an apnoea-hypopnoea frequency (AHI) of > or =10/h or <10/h. AHI was significantly lower following treatment with fluticasone than with placebo in the total population (median (quartile range) 11.9 (22.6) v 20 (26.3); p<0.05) and in group A (23.3 (21.3) v 30.3 (31.9); p<0.05). Median (95% confidence interval) within subject differences for AHI were -3.2 (-17.7 to -0.2) in the total population and -6.5 (-29.5 to 1.8) in group A. NAR was also lower on fluticasone (2.74 (1.21) v 3.27 (1.38), p<0.01), within subject difference being -0.45 (95% CI -0.87 to -0.21). The changes in AHI and NAR in group A were significantly correlated (r=0.56; p<0.05). Snoring noise and sleep quality were unchanged but daily diary records indicated subjective improvements in nasal congestion and daytime alertness with fluticasone (p<0.02).
                Intranasal fluticasone is of benefit to some patients with OSAS and rhinitis. The data suggest that this form of nasal obstruction may contribute to the pathophysiology of OSAS. One hundred thirty-six children with otitis media with effusion of at least 2 months' duration were investigated in a strict, double-blind, randomized prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of oral steroids in the treatment of this disease. The results of our study showed a significant complete and partial recovery from otitis media with effusion in the group treated by a combination of antibiotics (amoxicillin) and oral steroids (prednisone), compared with an amoxicillin-treated group and a placebo-treated group. We believe that this treatment mostly benefits children aged 4 to 10 years without oversized adenoids. The findings of our study imply that a combined course of antibiotics and oral steroids deserves its place as a routine conservative trial before surgery.
A single small study has found a short-term beneficial effect on the AHI in children with mild to moderate OSA. However, long-term safety and efficacy data are not available yet. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate anti-inflammatory drugs for OSA in children.