Mandibular movement monitor provides faster, yet accurate diagnosis for obstructive sleep apnoea: A randomised controlled study.

Many patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) remain undiagnosed and thus untreated, and in part this relates to delay in diagnosis. Novel diagnostic strategies may improve access to diagnosis. In a multicentre, randomised study, we evaluated time to treatment decision in patients referred for suspected OSA, comparing a mandibular movement (MM) monitor to respiratory polygraphy, the most commonly used OSA detection method in the UK. Adults with high pre-test probability OSA were recruited from both northern Scotland and London. 40 participants (70 % male, mean±SD age 46.8 ± 12.9 years, BMI 36.9 ± 7.5 kg/m2, ESS 14.9 ± 4.1) wore a MM monitor and respiratory polygraphy simultaneously overnight and were randomised (1:1) to receive their treatment decision based on results from either device. Compared to respiratory polygraphy, MM monitor reduced time to treatment decision by 6 days (median(IQR): 13.5 (7.0-21.5) vs. 19.5 (13.7-35.5) days, P = 0.017) and saved an estimated 29 min of staff time per patient.

Factors affecting hepatitis vaccination refusal at a sexually transmitted disease clinic among men who have sex with men.

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) attending sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics should be considered candidates for hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination. However, vaccination rates in STD clinics remain less than optimal. GOAL: The goal was to identify factors that affect HAV and HBV vaccination refusals. STUDY DESIGN: A survey was administered to MSM eligible for the vaccinations attending an STD clinic. Vaccines were offered at the end of the clinic visit. RESULTS: Rates of refusal of HAV (RefuseA) and HBV (RefuseB) vaccinations were 36% and 38%. Health motivation was associated with acceptance, while clinical barriers such as "want to test first for immunity," and "want to talk to own doctor first" were associated with refusal. "Not enough time this evening" was most strongly predictive of refusal, relative to strongly disagree (risk ratios [RRstrongly agree] and 95% confidence limits for RefuseA and RefuseB were 2.69 [1.43, 5.05] and 2.02 [1.05, 3.87], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: To increase acceptance, patients less health-motivated should be identified for prevaccination counseling. Some perceived barriers such as time may be a partial excuse; staff should identify and address other perceptions that may be influencing patients' decisions.

Hepatitis A and B vaccination in a sexually transmitted disease clinic for men who have sex with men.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted disease clinics can deliver hepatitis vaccines to men who have sex with men, but have been reluctant to do so because of perceived low vaccination completion rates. GOAL: The goal was to evaluate hepatitis A and B vaccination eligibility, acceptance, and completion and the effectiveness of reminder/recall in a sexually transmitted disease clinic serving men who have sex with men. DESIGN: Clients self-reported their eligibility for free vaccine. Consenting clients who accepted a first dose of vaccine were systematically assigned to receive telephone reminder/recall or standard follow-up. RESULTS: Of 1203 clients, 71.8% were eligible for both vaccines; 62.6% of those eligible accepted both. Reminder/recall was associated with increased receipt of the second dose of hepatitis B vaccine (86.7% versus 80.4% among intervention and control groups, respectively), but not with completion of both vaccine series (55.9% versus 58.8%). CONCLUSION: The majority of clients were eligible for both hepatitis vaccines, and most eligible clients accepted a first dose of both vaccines. Reminder/recall, as delivered at this clinic, failed to increase the proportion of clients who received all vaccine doses. New delivery mechanisms should be explored.