Sex differences in mandibular repositioning device therapy effectiveness in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

PURPOSE: Mandibular repositioning devices (MRDs) are an effective treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), particularly in patients who refuse or cannot tolerate continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, sex differences in the response to therapy and predictors of response are not clearly defined. This analysis of data from the long-term prospective ORCADES trial compared MRD efficacy in men and women with OSAS. METHODS: The ORCADES study included patients with newly diagnosed mild-to-moderate or severe OSAS who refused or were non-compliant with CPAP. MRD therapy was titrated over 3-6 months. The primary endpoint was treatment success (≥ 50% decrease in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI)). Complete response was defined using a range of AHI cut-off values (< 5/h, < 10/h, < 15/h). RESULTS: Overall treatment success rates were 89% in women and 76% in men (p = 0.019); corresponding rates in those with severe OSAS (AHI > 30/h) were 100% and 68% (p = 0.0015). In women vs. men, overall complete response rates at AHI cut-off values of < 5/h, <10/h, and < 15/h were 49 vs. 34% (p = 0.0052), 78 vs. 62% (p = 0.016), and 92 vs. 76% (p = 0.0032). On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of MRD treatment success were overbite and baseline apnea index in men, and neck circumference and no previous CPAP therapy in women. There were sex differences in the occurrence of side effects. Temporomandibular joint pain was the most common reason for stopping MRD therapy. CONCLUSIONS: MRD therapy was effective in women with OSA of any severity, with significantly higher response rates compared with men especially in severe OSAS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01326143).

Predictive Factors for Efficacious Oral Appliance Therapy in Moderate to Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Oral appliances (OAs) are a treatment for obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). The main objective of the study was to determine the predictive factors of OA efficacy. The secondary objective was to measure the efficacy rates and determine OAs' tolerance and dropout. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Efficacy results of the OAs based on the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) reduction, complications, and dropout rates were retrospectively collected from 347 patients with a moderate to severe OSAHS treated by a retention OA. The procedure was entirely performed by otolaryngologists. RESULTS: The AHI with OA was more significantly reduced in patients with a higher initial AHI and a higher initial body mass index but reduction was not related to age and not proportional to the degree of mandibular advancement. The 50% AHI reduction rate after OA was 65.2%, the AHI ≤5/hr rate after OA was 26.1%, and the <50% AHI reduction and residual AHI > 10/hr rate was 50.1%. The OA significantly reduced the mean AHI (-14.9/hr, P < .0001). In 7.8% of patients, the AHI increased with OA. Seven patients (1.5%) experienced adverse effects. Thirty-seven (7.8%) patients stopped using OA mainly because of its ineffectiveness. Advancement can be considered beyond the initial maximal advancement. It can be effective sometimes; however, increasing advancement did not significantly reduce AHI. CONCLUSIONS: OA is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for moderate to severe OSAHS. This treatment was effective for reduction of the AHI ≥50% in two-thirds of cases studied and it should be considered in more cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E2089-E2096, 2021.