TITLE

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

AUTHOR(S)
Quinnell, Timothy G.; Bennett, Maxine; Jordan, Jake; Clutterbuck-James, Abigail L.; Davies, Michael G.; Smith, Ian E.; Oscroft, Nicholas; Pittman, Marcus A.; Cameron, Malcolm; Chadwick, Rebecca; Morrel, Mary J.; Glover, Matthew J.; Fox-Rushby, Julia A.; Sharples, Linda D.
PUB. DATE
October 2014
SOURCE
Thorax;Oct2014, Vol. 69 Issue 10, p938
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
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 nonadjustable 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.
ACCESSION #
98503802

 

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics