The Combination of Aroxybutynin and Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (MARIPOSA): A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rationale: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common sleep disorder for which the principal treatment option, continuous positive airway pressure, is often poorly tolerated. There is currently no approved pharmacotherapy for OSA. However, recent studies have demonstrated improvement in OSA with combined antimuscarinic and noradrenergic drugs. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AD109, a combination of the novel antimuscarinic agent aroxybutynin and the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor atomoxetine, in the treatment of OSA. Methods: Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 4-week trial comparing AD109 2.5/75 mg, AD109 5/75 mg, atomoxetine 75 mg alone, and placebo (www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT05071612). Measurements and Main Results: Of 211 randomized patients, 181 were included in the prespecified efficacy analyses. Sleep was assessed by two baseline and two treatment polysomnograms. Apnea-hypopnea index with a 4% desaturation criterion (primary outcome) was reduced from a median (IQR) of 20.5 (12.3-27.2) to 10.8 (5.6-18.5) in the AD109 2.5/75 mg arm (-47.1%), from 19.4 (13.7-26.4) to 9.5 (6.1-19.3) in the AD109 5/75 mg arm (-42.9%; both P < 0.0001 vs. placebo), and from 19.0 (11.8-28.8) to 11.8 (5.5-21.5) with atomoxetine alone (-38.8%; P < 0.01 vs. placebo). Apnea-hypopnea index with a 4% desaturation criterion decreased from 20.1 (11.9-25.9) to 16.3 (11.1-28.9) in the placebo arm. Subjectively, there was improvement in fatigue with AD109 2.5/75 mg (P < 0.05 vs. placebo and atomoxetine). Atomoxetine taken alone decreased total sleep time (P < 0.05 vs. AD109 and placebo). The most common adverse events were dry mouth, insomnia, and urinary hesitancy. Conclusions: AD109 showed clinically meaningful improvement in OSA, suggesting that further development of the compound is warranted. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05071612).

Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment and the Evaluation of Clinical Effectiveness of Uniquely Designed Oral Appliance Therapy Device.

BACKGROUND:  Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been considered first-line therapy for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); however, adherence to the therapy is suboptimal. Oral appliance therapy (OAT) is an alternative to CPAP that may lend to better patient adherence, quality of life, and overall patients' effectiveness of therapy. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-site, non-randomized study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a uniquely designed OAT device with an embedded adherence tracking chip in the treatment of mild and moderate OSA patients over three months. The effectiveness of OAT therapy was defined as the numerical product of efficacy and adherence. The efficacy of the device was defined as the change from baseline in the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Adherence was based on usage for a minimum of 4 hours/night of use, for at least five out of seven nights a week. RESULTS: 45 participants fitted with the OAT device completed at least one follow-up visit and had recordable objective data. Average patient wearing time was 7 hours/night and a reduction of the AHI from 16.4 events/hour to 5.7 events/hour after three months of use. Mean disease alleviation (MDA), which serves as a measure of the overall therapeutic effectiveness, was 62% when looking at 4 hours/night of usage. As the comfort of the device is related to wearing time, subjective data indicated the optimum first-time fit of the device. CONCLUSION: The study OAT device was well tolerated throughout the study. When both efficacy and adherence are considered, OAT can be a clinically effective tool to treat OSA.

Oral appliance therapy and hypoglossal nerve stimulation as non-positive airway pressure treatment alternatives for obstructive sleep apnea: a narrative expert review.

This perspective on alternatives to positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) summarizes the proceedings of a focus group that was conducted by the Sleep Research Society Foundation. This perspective is from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from sleep medicine, dental sleep medicine, and otolaryngology that aims to identify the current role of oral appliance therapy and hypoglossal nerve stimulation for the treatment of OSA with emphasis on the US practice arena. A secondary aim is to identify-from an implementation science standpoint-the various barriers and facilitators for adoption of non-PAP treatment that includes access to care, multidisciplinary expertise, reimbursement, regulatory aspects, current treatment guidelines, health policies, and other factors related to the delivery of care. The panel has contextualized the review with recent events-such as a large-scale PAP device recall compounded by supply chain woes of the pandemic-and emerging science in the field of OSA and offers solutions for multidisciplinary approaches while identifying knowledge gaps and future research opportunities.

The combination of atomoxetine and dronabinol for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a dose-escalating, open-label trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The potential sedative effect of dronabinol and the high expression of cannabinoid receptors on the hypoglossal motor nuclei makes this agent a good candidate for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) pharmacotherapy to be tested with atomoxetine, a noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor that reduced OSA severity in combination with oxybutynin. Here we tested the effect of atomoxetine 80 mg plus dronabinol (Ato-Dro) at 2 different doses (5 and 10 mg) vs. baseline and atomoxetine alone in a 2-center, open-label, dose-escalating trial. The primary outcome was the effect of Ato-Dro vs. baseline on OSA severity (apnea-hypopnea index, hypopneas associated with 4% oxygen desaturation). Safety of the combination and self-reported outcomes were also assessed. METHODS: Fifteen patients with OSA received progressively increasing Ato-Dro doses (dose escalation was performed every week, starting from Ato-Dro 40-2.5 mg, then 80-5 mg and finally 80-10 mg). A clinical, in-lab polysomnography was performed at baseline, on Ato-Dro 80-5 and Ato-Dro 80-10 mg. RESULTS: Ato-Dro 80-10 mg did not significantly reduce apnea-hypopnea index, hypopneas associated with 4% oxygen desaturation, and hypoxic burden and yielded limited clinical benefit vs. baseline and atomoxetine alone. However, Ato-Dro 80-5 mg did improve OSA severity (Δapnea-hypopnea index = 8.3[0.3, 16.3] events/h; mean [confidence interval]; Δhypoxic burden = 37.7[12.5, 62.7] %min/h) and multiple self-reported outcomes vs. baseline and/or atomoxetine alone. Ato-Dro administration was characterized by several potentially harmful side effects and treatment discontinuation in 1/3 of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Ato-Dro 80-5 mg might be useful to reduce OSA severity and lead to self-reported improvement in those who could tolerate the combination. However, given the numerous side effects and the exploratory nature of this open-label study, our results warrant further validation in larger trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Title: Study for Efficacy and Dose Escalation of AD313 + Atomoxetine (SEED) (SEED); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05101122; Identifier: NCT05101122. CITATION: Messineo L, Norman D, Ojile J. The combination of atomoxetine and dronabinol for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a dose-escalating, open-label trial. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(7):1183-1190.

Efficacy and safety of tonic motor activation (TOMAC) for medication-refractory restless legs syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of bilateral high-frequency tonic motor activation (TOMAC) in patients with medication-refractory restless legs syndrome (RLS). METHODS: RESTFUL was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in adults with medication-refractory moderate-to-severe primary RLS. Participants were randomized 1:1 to active or sham TOMAC for a double-blind, 4-week stage 1 and all received active TOMAC during open-label, 4-week stage 2. The primary endpoint was the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) responder rate at the end of stage 1. Key secondary endpoints included change to International RLS Study Group (IRLS) total score from study entry to the end of stage 1. RESULTS: A total of 133 participants were enrolled. CGI-I responder rate at the end of stage 1 was significantly greater for the active versus sham group (45% vs. 16%; Difference = 28%; 95% CI 14% to 43%; p = .00011). At the end of stage 2, CGI-I responder rate further increased to 61% for the active group. IRLS change at the end of stage 1 improved for the active versus sham group (-7.2 vs. -3.8; difference = -3.4; 95% CI -1.4 to -5.4; p = .00093). There were no severe or serious device-related adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were mild discomfort and mild administration site irritation which resolved rapidly and reduced in prevalence over time. CONCLUSIONS: TOMAC was safe, well tolerated, and reduced symptoms of RLS in medication-refractory patients. TOMAC is a promising new treatment for this population. CLINICAL TRIAL: Noninvasive Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Medication-Refractory Primary RLS (The RESTFUL Study); clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04874155; Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier number NCT04874155.

Long-term efficacy and safety of tonic motor activation for treatment of medication-refractory restless legs syndrome: A 24-Week Open-Label Extension Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of tonic motor activation (TOMAC) for treatment of medication-refractory moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS). METHODS: In the parent study (RESTFUL), adults with refractory RLS were randomized to active TOMAC or sham for 4 weeks followed by 4 weeks of open-label active TOMAC. In the extension study, earlier RESTFUL completers comprised the control group (n = 59), which was followed for 24 weeks with no TOMAC intervention, and later RESTFUL completers compromised the treatment group (n = 44), which received 24 additional weeks of open-label active TOMAC followed by no intervention for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was Clinician Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) responder rate at week 24 compared to RESTFUL entry. RESULTS: CGI-I responder rate improved from 63.6% (95% CI, 49.4 to 77.9%) at RESTFUL completion to 72.7% (95% CI, 58.2 to 83.7%) at week 24 for the treatment group versus 13.6% (95% CI, 7.0 to 24.5%) at week 24 for the control group (p < 0.0001). Mean change in International RLS Rating Scale (IRLS) score improved from -7.4 (95% CI, -5.6 to -9.2) at RESTFUL completion to -11.3 points (95% CI, -8.8 to -13.9) at week 24 for the treatment group versus -5.4 (95% CI, -3.7 to -7.2) at week 24 for control group (p = 0.0001). All efficacy endpoints partially reverted during cessation of treatment. There were no grade 2 or higher device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: TOMAC remained safe and efficacious for >24 total weeks of treatment with partial reversion of benefits upon cessation. CLINICAL TRIAL: Extension Study Evaluating NTX100 Neuromodulation System for Medication-Refractory Primary RLS; clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05196828; Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier number NCT05196828.

Evaluation of a novel device to assess obstructive sleep apnea and body position.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea is a prevalent disease with well-known complications when left untreated. Advances in sleep-disordered breathing diagnosis may increase detection and appropriate treatment. The Wesper device is a recently developed portable system with specialized wearable patches that can measure respiratory effort, derived airflow, estimated air pressure, and body position. This study sought to compare the diagnostic ability of the novel Wesper device with the gold standard of polysomnography. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the study underwent simultaneous polysomnography and Wesper device testing in a sleep laboratory setting. Data were collected and scored by readers blinded to all patient information, and the primary reader was blinded to testing method. The accuracy of the Wesper device was determined by calculation of the Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman limits of agreement of apnea-hypopnea indices between testing methods. Adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were enrolled in the study and 45 patients were included in the final analysis. Pearson correlation between polysomnography and Wesper device apnea-hypopnea index determinations was 0.951, which met the primary endpoint goal (P = .0003). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were -8.05 and 6.38, which also met the endpoint goal (P < .001). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events noted. CONCLUSIONS: The Wesper device compares favorably with gold-standard polysomnography. Given the lack of safety concerns, we advocate for further study regarding its utility in diagnosis and management of sleep apnea in the future. CITATION: Raphelson JR, Ahmed IM, Ancoli-Israel S, et al. Evaluation of a novel device to assess obstructive sleep apnea and body position. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(9):1643-1649.

Pulse oximetry saturation patterns detect repetitive reductions in airflow.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative patients exhibiting signs or symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have been identified to be at increased risk for respiratory compromise. One of the key markers associated with OSA is repetitive reductions in airflow (RRiA). A real-time pulse oximeter saturation pattern recognition algorithm (OxiMax SPD™ intended for adult in-hospital use only) designed to detect specific signatures in the SpO(2) trend associated with RRiA may provide caregivers early indication of its presence so they can treat the patient appropriately. The purpose of our study was to test the performance of saturation pattern detection (SPD) in a clinical study targeting subjects with a high prevalence of RRiA. METHODS: Overnight polysomnograph (PSG) recordings were collected on 104 sleep lab patients. RRiA was defined in terms of specific criteria from four PSG signals, evaluated in consecutive 10 min epochs. PSG scoring was conducted blind to calculation of SPD. Statistical measures of sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated for the detection of RRiA by SPD. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 92 valid sets of patient recordings, encompassing 3,917 epochs. At the highest available SPD alert setting, the sensitivity was 80.2% (95% C.I. = 76.8-83.3%), the specificity was 88.3% (87.2-89.3). Area under the ROC curve was 0.87 (0.84-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The real-time SPD algorithm was able to detect episodes of RRiA in sleep lab patients with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity.

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Positive Airway Pressure Therapy Adherence in a Sleep Center.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy adherence in commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers presenting to a sleep center. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 120 drivers evaluated for obstructive sleep apnea OSA and 53 initiated on PAP therapy in a single sleep center over a one-year period (2012); PAP therapy data were collected up to 1 year. RESULTS: Early PAP usage best predicted adherence up to 1 year (p < 0.0001) compared to patient factors, OSA disease characteristics, and treatment elements analyzed. The proportion of participants adherent to therapy was 68.0% at 1 week, decreasing to 39.6% at 1 year, with 31.1% lost to follow-up by 1 year. In the group categorized based on adherence at week 1, 80.6% were adherent at 1 month, decreasing to 52.8% at 1 year. For the group non-adherent at 1 week, 29.4% were adherent at 1 month, decreasing to 11.7% at 1 year. Participants were predominantly male (75.8%), middle-aged (median 50.5 years), and African American (71.7%). Of those referred to the sleep center, 86.7% had OSA (median apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] or respiratory event index [REI] 20.1), with 51.0% of the OSA group having an AHI or REI > 20 and initiating PAP therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Early PAP utilization patterns predicted one year adherence for our CMV driver population within a sleep clinic setting. OSA testing of these CMV drivers after occupational health referral identifies high proportions of undiagnosed OSA, with approximately half requiring PAP therapy based on current published treatment recommendations.

A pilot study assessing adherence to auto-bilevel following a poor initial encounter with CPAP.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that early intervention with an auto bilevel device would improve treatment adherence compared to CPAP among OSA patients with a poor initial experience with lab-based CPAP titration. METHODS: Patients with a poor initial CPAP experience were recruited for this parallel group, randomized, double-blind, controlled pilot study. After an in-lab titration, patients were randomized with either an auto-bilevel device or CPAP. Treatment adherence and functioning were assessed at 90 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 51 subjects, with 47 completing the protocol. Groups were equally matched for gender, age, education, and OSA severity. There was no significant difference in the proportion of compliant subjects (≥ 4 h/night) between the auto bilevel and CPAP groups (62% vs. 54%; p = 0.624) after 90 days of use. Functional outcomes significantly improved in both groups during treatment use (p < 0.001) but did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in adherence between the auto bilevel and CPAP groups in this study. Patients with a poor initial CPAP exposure may still achieve an acceptable long-term clinical outcome. Both groups demonstrated comparably significant improvements in functional outcomes, sleepiness, and fatigue complaints over the treatment period. CLINICAL TRIALS INFORMATION: NCT00635206 ClinicalTrials.gov

Obstructive sleep apnea devices for out-of-center (OOC) testing: technology evaluation.

Guidance is needed to help clinicians decide which out-of-center (OOC) testing devices are appropriate for diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). A new classification system that details the type of signals measured by these devices is presented. This proposed system categorizes OOC devices based on measurements of Sleep, Cardiovascular, Oximetry, Position, Effort, and Respiratory (SCOPER) parameters.Criteria for evaluating the devices are also presented, which were generated from chosen pre-test and post-test probabilities. These criteria state that in patients with a high pretest probability of having OSA, the OOC testing device has a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 5 or greater coinciding with an in-lab-polysomnography (PSG)-generated apnea hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 5, and an adequate sensitivity (at least 0.825).Since oximetry is a mandatory signal for scoring AHI using PSG, devices that do not incorporate oximetry were excluded. English peer-reviewed literature on FDA-approved devices utilizing more than 1 signal was reviewed according to the above criteria for 6 questions. These questions specifically addressed the adequacy of different respiratory and effort sensors and combinations thereof to diagnose OSA. In summary, the literature is currently inadequate to state with confidence that a thermistor alone without any effort sensor is adequate to diagnose OSA; if a thermal sensing device is used as the only measure of respiration, 2 effort belts are required as part of the montage and piezoelectric belts are acceptable in this context; nasal pressure can be an adequate measurement of respiration with no effort measure with the caveat that this may be device specific; nasal pressure may be used in combination with either 2 piezoelectric or respiratory inductance plethysmographic (RIP) belts (but not 1 piezoelectric belt); and there is insufficient evidence to state that both nasal pressure and thermistor are required to adequately diagnose OSA. With respect to alternative devices for diagnosing OSA, the data indicate that peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT) devices are adequate for the proposed use; the device based on cardiac signals shows promise, but more study is required as it has not been tested in the home setting; for the device based on end-tidal CO(2) (ETCO(2)), it appears to be adequate for a hospital population; and for devices utilizing acoustic signals, the data are insufficient to determine whether the use of acoustic signals with other signals as a substitute for airflow is adequate to diagnose OSA.Standardized research is needed on OOC devices that report LR+ at the appropriate AHI (≥ 5) and scored according to the recommended definitions, while using appropriate research reporting and methodology to minimize bias.