Reassessment of the risk of narcolepsy in children in England 8 years after receipt of the AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 pandemic vaccine: A case-coverage study.

BACKGROUND: Early studies of narcolepsy after AS03-adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N12009 vaccine (Pandemrix) could not define the duration of elevated risk post-vaccination nor the risk in children aged under 5 years who may not present until much older. METHODS/FINDINGS: Clinical information and sleep test results, extracted from hospital notes at 3 large pediatric sleep centers in England between September 2017 and June 2018 for narcolepsy cases aged 4-19 years with symptom onset since January 2009, were reviewed by an expert panel to confirm the diagnosis. Vaccination histories were independently obtained from general practitioners (GPs). The odds of vaccination in narcolepsy cases compared with the age-matched English population was calculated after adjustment for clinical conditions that were indications for vaccination. GP questionnaires were returned for 242 of the 244 children with confirmed narcolepsy. Of these 5 were under 5 years, 118 were 5-11 years, and 119 were 12-19 years old at diagnosis; 39 were vaccinated with Pandemrix before onset. The odds ratio (OR) for onset at any time after vaccination was 1.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.89), The elevated risk period was restricted to onsets within 12 months of vaccination (OR 6.65 [3.44-12.85]) and was highest within the first 6 months. After one year, ORs were not significantly different from 1 up to 8 years after vaccination. The ORs were similar in under five-year-olds and older ages. The estimated attributable risk was 1 in 34,500 doses. Our study is limited by including cases from only 3 sleep centers, who may differ from cases diagnosed in nonparticipating centers, and by imprecision in defining the centers' catchment population. The potential for biased recall of onset shortly after vaccination in cases aware of the association cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that vaccine-attributable cases have onset of narcolepsy within 12 months of Pandemrix vaccination. The attributable risk is higher than previously estimated in England because of identification of vaccine-attributable cases with late diagnoses. Absence of a compensatory drop in risk 1-8 years after vaccination suggests that Pandemrix does not trigger onsets in those in whom narcolepsy would have occurred later.

A crossover randomised controlled trial of oral mandibular advancement devices for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO).

RATIONALE: Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are used to treat obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS) but evidence is lacking regarding their clinical and cost-effectiveness in less severe disease. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a range of MADs against no treatment in mild to moderate OSAHS. MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, randomised, controlled, crossover trial was undertaken at a UK sleep centre. Adults with Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) 5-<30/h and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score ≥9 underwent 6 weeks of treatment with three non-adjustable MADs: self-moulded (SleepPro 1; SP1); semi-bespoke (SleepPro 2; SP2); fully-bespoke MAD (bMAD); and 4 weeks no treatment. Primary outcome was AHI scored by a polysomnographer blinded to treatment. Secondary outcomes included ESS, quality of life, resource use and cost. MAIN RESULTS: 90 patients were randomised and 83 were analysed. All devices reduced AHI compared with no treatment by 26% (95% CI 11% to 38%, p=0.001) for SP1, 33% (95% CI 24% to 41%) for SP2 and 36% (95% CI 24% to 45%, p<0.001) for bMAD. ESS was 1.51 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29, p<0.001, SP1) to 2.37 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.22, p<0.001, bMAD) lower than no treatment (p<0.001 for all). Compliance was lower for SP1, which was the least preferred treatment at trial exit. All devices were cost-effective compared with no treatment at a £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold. SP2 was the most cost-effective up to £39,800/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adjustable MADs achieve clinically important improvements in mild to moderate OSAHS and are cost-effective. Of those trialled, the semi-bespoke MAD is an appropriate first choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN02309506.

Alternatives to continuous positive airway pressure 2: mandibular advancement devices compared.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although mandibular advancement devices (MADs) provide an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), their effectiveness and role remain unclear. Several recent studies and an updated meta-analysis have attempted to address these uncertainties. This review examines their contribution to the existing evidence and discusses the future priorities for MAD research. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent work has examined the impact of MAD design on clinical and cost-effectiveness in milder disease. A robust comparison of CPAP and MADs in more severe OSA has reported equivalent improvements in several important health outcomes. Other notable contributions have examined compliance, definitions of treatment success and longer term outcomes of MAD therapy. SUMMARY: There is now a growing body of evidence suggesting that MADs are a clinically and cost-effective treatment for OSA; and in some cases, patient preference may make them a better option than CPAP. Further work needs to continue to refine MAD therapy in order to optimize treatment response and compliance, whilst retaining a pragmatic and cost-effective approach that is relevant to clinical practice and sustainable in the longer term.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure plus Mandibular Advancement Therapy (PAPMAT): study protocol for an adaptive randomised crossover trial comparing the benefits and costs of combining two established treatments for obstructive sleep apnoea.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) involves repeated breathing pauses during sleep due to upper airway obstruction. It causes excessive daytime sleepiness and has other health impacts. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is effective first line treatment for moderate to severe OSA. Unfortunately, many patients have difficulty tolerating CPAP and pressure intolerance is probably an important contributing factor. Mandibular advancement devices (MAD) are an alternative to CPAP. They are worn in the mouth during sleep to reduce airway obstruction. There is some evidence that, when used in combination with CPAP, MADs improve airway anatomy enough to reduce the CPAP pressure required to treat OSA and that this combination therapy could improve CPAP adherence. METHODS: Consecutive patients starting on CPAP for moderate to severe OSA will be recruited at a regional NHS sleep service. Patients with high CPAP pressure requirements after initial titration, who satisfy all entry criteria and consent to participate, will undertake a 2-arm randomised crossover trial. The arms will be (i) standalone CPAP and (ii) CPAP + MAD therapy. Each arm will last 12 weeks, including 2 weeks acclimatisation. CPAP machines will be auto-titrating and with facility for data download, so the impact of MAD on CPAP pressure requirements and CPAP adherence can be easily measured. The primary outcome will be CPAP adherence. Secondary outcomes will include measures of OSA severity, patient-reported outcome measures including subjective daytime sleepiness, quality of life, and treatment preference at the trial exit and health service use. Cost-effectiveness analyses will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: If the intervention is shown to be effective and cost-effective in improving adherence in this standard CPAP-eligible OSA patient population it would be relatively straightforward to introduce into existing OSA treatment pathways, within the wider NHS and more widely. Both MAD and CPAP are already used by sleep services so their combination would require only minor adjustments to existing clinical pathways. It would be straightforward to disseminate the results of the study through regional, national, and international respiratory meetings. The health economics analysis would provide cost-effectiveness data to inform service planning and clinical guidelines through policy briefing papers, including those by NICE and SIGN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PAPMAT was registered with ISRCTN prior to recruitment beginning (ISRCTN Registry 2021): https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN33966032 . Registered on 17th November 2021.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of oral mandibular advancement devices and continuous positive airway pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea.

Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH) causes excessive daytime sleepiness, impairs quality-of-life, and increases cardiovascular disease and road traffic accident risks. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment and mandibular advancement devices (MAD) have been shown to be effective in individual trials but their effectiveness particularly relative to disease severity is unclear. A MEDLINE, Embase and Science Citation Index search updating two systematic reviews to August 2013 identified 77 RCTs in adult OSAH patients comparing: MAD with conservative management (CM); MAD with CPAP; or CPAP with CM. Overall MAD and CPAP significantly improved apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) (MAD -9.3/hr (p < 0.001), CPAP -25.4 (p < 0.001)). In direct comparisons mean AHI and Epworth sleepiness scale score were lower (7.0/hr (p < 0.001) and 0.67 (p = 0.093) respectively) for CPAP. There were no CPAP vs. MAD trials in mild OSAH but in comparisons with CM, MAD and CPAP reduced ESS similarly (MAD 2.01 (p < 0.001); CPAP 1.23 (p = 0.012). Both MAD and CPAP are clinically effective in the treatment of OSAH. Although CPAP has a greater treatment effect, MAD is an appropriate treatment for patients who are intolerant of CPAP and may be comparable to CPAP in mild disease.

Obstructive sleep apnoea in the elderly: recognition and management considerations.

Obstructive sleep apnoea is characterised by repetitive interruptions of breathing during sleep due to upper airway collapse. It affects sleep quality, daytime alertness and quality of life. It is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and an increased risk of road traffic accidents. Sleep apnoea is common among older people and its effects can be more severe than in younger people. The added impact is because of a physiological decline in sleep quality with age in most people and the increasing frequency of other comorbidities with increasing years that affect both sleep and daytime function. It is important to be alert to the diagnosis, bearing in mind these other influences on sleep quality. The diagnosis is generally straightforward once appropriate tests are performed. Treatment is aimed at minimising upper airway obstruction during sleep and the most effective therapy is continuous positive airway pressure. Weight loss can also be effective. Other management options, including surgery, mandibular advancement devices and drug treatment, are less effective, but there are interesting advances in the understanding of the pharmacology of the upper airway. Specific serotonergic agonists hold the greatest potential for a useful drug treatment for this widespread and debilitating condition.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results from the randomised controlled Trial of Oral Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO) and long-term economic analysis of oral devices and continuous positive airway pressure.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH) causes excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), impairs quality of life (QoL) and increases cardiovascular disease and road traffic accident risks. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment is clinically effective but undermined by intolerance, and its cost-effectiveness is borderline in milder cases. Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are another option, but evidence is lacking regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in milder disease. OBJECTIVES: (1) Conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MADs against no treatment in mild to moderate OSAH. (2) Update systematic reviews and an existing health economic decision model with data from the Trial of Oral Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO) and newly published results to better inform long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MADs and CPAP in mild to moderate OSAH. TOMADO: A crossover RCT comparing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three MADs: self-moulded [SleepPro 1™ (SP1); Meditas Ltd, Winchester, UK]; semibespoke [SleepPro 2™ (SP2); Meditas Ltd, Winchester, UK]; and fully bespoke [bespoke MAD (bMAD); NHS Oral-Maxillofacial Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK] against no treatment, in 90 adults with mild to moderate OSAH. All devices improved primary outcome [apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI)] compared with no treatment: relative risk 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.89] for SP1; relative risk 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.76) for SP2; and relative risk 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.76) for bMAD (p < 0.001). Differences between MADs were not significant. Sleepiness [as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)] was scored 1.51 [95% CI 0.73 to 2.29 (SP1)] to 2.37 [95% CI 1.53 to 3.22 (bMAD)] lower than no treatment (p < 0.001), with SP2 and bMAD significantly better than SP1. All MADs improved disease-specific QoL. Compliance was lower for SP1, which was unpopular at trial exit. At 4 weeks, all devices were cost-effective at £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with SP2 the best value below £39,800/QALY. META-ANALYSIS: A MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index search updating two existing systematic reviews (one from November 2006 and the other from June 2008) to August 2013 identified 77 RCTs in adult OSAH patients comparing MAD with conservative management (CM), MADs with CPAP or CPAP with CM. MADs and CPAP significantly improved AHI [MAD -9.3/hour (p < 0.001); CPAP -25.4/hour (p < 0.001)]. Effect difference between CPAP and MADs was 7.0/hour (p < 0.001), favouring CPAP. No trials compared CPAP with MADs in mild OSAH. MAD and CPAP reduced the ESS score similarly [MAD 1.6 (p < 0.001); CPAP 1.6 (p < 0.001)]. LONG-TERM COST-EFFECTIVENESS: An existing model assessed lifetime cost-utility of MAD and CPAP in mild to moderate OSAH, using the revised meta-analysis to update input values. The TOMADO provided utility estimates, mapping ESS score to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version for device cost-utility. Using SP2 as the standard device, MADs produced higher mean costs and mean QALYs than CM [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £6687/QALY]. From a willingness to pay (WTP) of £15,367/QALY, CPAP is cost-effective, although the likelihood of MADs (p = 0.48) and CPAP (p = 0.49) being cost-effective is very similar. Both were better than CM, but there was much uncertainty in the choice between CPAP and MAD (at a WTP £20,000/QALY, the probability of being the most cost-effective was 47% for MAD and 52% for CPAP). When SP2 lifespan increased to 18 months, the ICER for CPAP compared with MAD became £44,066. The ICER for SP1 compared with CM was £1552, and for bMAD compared with CM the ICER was £13,836. The ICER for CPAP compared with SP1 was £89,182, but CPAP produced lower mean costs and higher mean QALYs than bMAD. Differential compliance rates for CPAP reduces cost-effectiveness so MADs become less costly and more clinically effective with CPAP compliance 90% of SP2. CONCLUSIONS: Mandibular advancement devices are clinically effective and cost-effective in mild to moderate OSAH. A semi-bespoke MAD is the appropriate first choice in most patients in the short term. Future work should explore whether or not adjustable MADs give additional clinical and cost benefits. Further data on longer-term cardiovascular risk and its risk factors would reduce uncertainty in the health economic model and improve precision of effectiveness estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN02309506. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.