CPAP vs Mandibular Advancement Devices and Blood Pressure in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with higher levels of blood pressure (BP), which can lead to increased cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: To compare the association of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), mandibular advancement devices (MADs), and inactive control groups (placebo or no treatment) with changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. DATA SOURCES: The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to the end of August 2015 and study bibliographies were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials comparing the effect of CPAP or MADs (vs each other or an inactive control) on BP in patients with obstructive sleep apnea were selected by consensus. Of 872 studies initially identified, 51 were selected for analysis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A network meta-analysis using multivariate random-effects meta-regression was used to estimate pooled differences between each intervention. Meta-regression was used to assess the association between trial characteristics and the reported effects of CPAP vs inactive control. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Absolute change in SBP and DBP from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 51 studies included in the analysis (4888 patients), 44 compared CPAP with an inactive control, 3 compared MADs with an inactive control, 1 compared CPAP with an MAD, and 3 compared CPAP, MADs, and an inactive control. Compared with an inactive control, CPAP was associated with a reduction in SBP of 2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.5 to 3.5 mm Hg; P < .001) and in DBP of 2.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.7 mm Hg; P < .001). A 1-hour-per-night increase in mean CPAP use was associated with an additional reduction in SBP of 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3 mm Hg; P < .001) and an additional reduction in DBP of 0.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4 mm Hg; P = .001). Compared with an inactive control, MADs were associated with a reduction in SBP of 2.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.4 mm Hg; P = .002) and in DBP of 1.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.5 to 3.2 mm Hg; P = .008). There was no significant difference between CPAP and MADs in their association with change in SBP (-0.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.0 to 1.0 mm Hg]; P = .55) or in DBP (-0.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -1.6 to 1.3 mm Hg]; P = .82). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with obstructive sleep apnea, both CPAP and MADs were associated with reductions in BP. Network meta-analysis did not identify a statistically significant difference between the BP outcomes associated with these therapies.

[CME: Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Common Disease]. / CME: Volkskrankheit obstruktive Schlafapnoe.

CME: Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Common Disease Abstract. Obstructive sleep apnea is a common sleep related breathing disorder with a collapse of the upper respiratory tract, leading to repetitive oxygen desaturations and 'micro arousals'. If the physiological sleep architecture is impaired, patients are at risk for an increased daytime sleepiness and an increased blood pressure. Main risk factors are central obesity, age, male sex, (and snoring). By means of weight loss, alcohol restriction, and continuous nocturnal positive pressure ventilation (CPAP), the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome can be treated, with mandibular advancement devices representing a second-choice therapy.

Effects of CPAP and Mandibular Advancement Devices on Health-Related Quality of Life in OSA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Untreated OSA is associated with impaired health-related quality of life (QoL) and excessive daytime sleepiness, which have been shown to improve with treatment. The aim was to compare the effects of CPAP and a mandibular advancement device (MAD) on health-related QoL in OSA. METHODS: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of CPAP, MADs, or an inactive control treatment on health-related QoL assessed by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in OSA. Extraction of study characteristics, quality, and bias assessment were independently performed by three authors. A network meta-analysis using multivariate random-effects meta-regression was performed to assess treatment effects on the mental component score (MCS) and the physical component score (PCS) of the SF-36. RESULTS: Of 1,491 identified studies, 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis (2,342 patients). Compared with an inactive control, CPAP was associated with a 1.7 point (95% CI, 0.1-3.2; P = .036) improvement in the MCS and a 1.7 point (95% CI, 0.5-2.9; P = .005) improvement in the PCS. MADs were associated with a 2.4 point (95% CI, 0.0-4.9; P = .053) and a 1.5 point (95% CI, -0.2 to 3.2; P = .076) improvement in the MCS and PCS, respectively, compared with inactive control treatments. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment effects of CPAP and MAD on the SF-36 scores. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is effective in improving health-related QoL in OSA, and MADs may be just as effective, but further RCTs comparing the two treatments are required.

Comparison of the effects of continuous positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices on sleepiness in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness is the most important symptom of obstructive sleep apnoea and can affect work productivity, quality of life, and the risk of road traffic accidents. We aimed to quantify the effects of the two main treatments for obstructive sleep apnoea (continuous positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices) on daytime sleepiness and to establish predictors of response to continuous positive airway pressure. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 31, 2015, to identify randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of continuous positive airway pressure, mandibular advancement devices or an inactive control (eg, placebo or no treatment) on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS, range 0-24 points) in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. We did a network meta-analysis using multivariate random-effects meta-regression to assess the effect of each treatment on ESS. We used meta-regression to assess the association of the reported effects of continuous positive airway pressure versus inactive controls with the characteristics of trials and their risk of bias. FINDINGS: We included 67 studies comprising 6873 patients in the meta-analysis. Compared with an inactive control, continuous positive airway pressure was associated with a reduction in ESS score of 2·5 points (95% CI 2·0-2·9) and mandibular advancement devices of 1·7 points (1·1-2·3). We estimated that, on average, continuous positive airway pressure reduced the ESS score by a further 0·8 points compared with mandibular advancement devices (95% CI 0·1-1·4; p=0·015). However, there was a possibility of publication bias in favour of continuous positive airway pressure that might have resulted in this difference. We noted no evidence that studies reporting higher continuous positive airway pressure adherence also reported larger treatment effects (p=0·70). INTERPRETATION: Continuous positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices are effective treatments for reducing daytime sleepiness in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. Continuous positive airway pressure seemed to be a more effective treatment than mandibular advancement devices, and had an increasingly larger effect in more severe or sleepier obstructive sleep apnoea patients when compared with inactive controls. However, mandibular advancement devices are an effective alternative treatment should continuous positive airway pressure not be tolerated. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation and the University of Zurich Clinical Research Priority Program Sleep and Health.

Differentiation of oral bacteria in in vitro cultures and human saliva by secondary electrospray ionization - mass spectrometry.

The detection of bacterial-specific volatile metabolites may be a valuable tool to predict infection. Here we applied a real-time mass spectrometric technique to investigate differences in volatile metabolic profiles of oral bacteria that cause periodontitis. We coupled a secondary electrospray ionization (SESI) source to a commercial high-resolution mass spectrometer to interrogate the headspace from bacterial cultures and human saliva. We identified 120 potential markers characteristic for periodontal pathogens Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (n = 13), Porphyromonas gingivalis (n = 70), Tanerella forsythia (n = 30) and Treponema denticola (n = 7) in in vitro cultures. In a second proof-of-principle phase, we found 18 (P. gingivalis, T. forsythia and T. denticola) of the 120 in vitro compounds in the saliva from a periodontitis patient with confirmed infection with P. gingivalis, T. forsythia and T. denticola with enhanced ion intensity compared to two healthy controls. In conclusion, this method has the ability to identify individual metabolites of microbial pathogens in a complex medium such as saliva.