持续气道正压和下颌前移夹板:CHOICE多中心开放标签随机临床试验。

IF 16.6 1区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Mona M Hamoda, Nelly Huynh, Najib T Ayas, Pierre Rompre, Nick Bansback, Jean-François Masse, Patrick Arcache, Gilles Lavigne, Frederic Series, John A Fleetham, Fernanda R Almeida
{"title":"持续气道正压和下颌前移夹板:CHOICE多中心开放标签随机临床试验。","authors":"Mona M Hamoda, Nelly Huynh, Najib T Ayas, Pierre Rompre, Nick Bansback, Jean-François Masse, Patrick Arcache, Gilles Lavigne, Frederic Series, John A Fleetham, Fernanda R Almeida","doi":"10.1183/13993003.01100-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Adherence to Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea (OSA) continues to be low with high termination rates. Alternative therapies to CPAP are needed.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare objective adherence to CPAP and Mandibular Advancement Splints (MAS) and to evaluate their effectiveness. Additionally, to identify treatment usage patterns and the clinical effectiveness of having both therapies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multi-center, double-randomized, three-phase trial (titration/cross-over/observation) was conducted at three Canadian universities. Eligible participants were treatment-naïve with mild to severe OSA.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Primary outcome was objectively measured adherence (hours/night) during cross-over phase. Secondary outcomes included efficacy during cross-over phase; adherence during observational phase; patient-centered outcomes, blood pressure and side-effects during cross-over and observational phases. Duration of cross-over and observational phases were 2.5 and 6 months respectively.Eighty-one participants were enrolled in the first randomization. Seventy-nine entered the adaptation/titration phase [mean age (sd); 52·3 (10·8) years, 58 males], 73 entered the cross-over phase (included in the intention-to-treat analysis) and 64 completed the observation phase. Mean objective adherence over 1-month, MAS showed higher adherence than CPAP, 6·0 <i>versus</i> 5·3 h/night (difference= 0·7 h/night, 95% CI: 0·3-1·2 h, p<0·001). Mean CPAP-MAS difference (95% CI) in efficacy of 10·4 (7·8-13) events/hour, p<0·001. During the observation phase 55% (35/64) of participants chose to alternate therapies. All treatments led to substantial improvement in patient-centered outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the higher efficacy of CPAP and higher adherence to MAS, both demonstrate comparable clinical effectiveness on patient-centered outcomes. Having both CPAP and MAS can improve long-term management of OSA.</p>","PeriodicalId":12265,"journal":{"name":"European Respiratory Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Mandibular Advancement Splints: The CHOICE Multi-center Open-Label Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Mona M Hamoda, Nelly Huynh, Najib T Ayas, Pierre Rompre, Nick Bansback, Jean-François Masse, Patrick Arcache, Gilles Lavigne, Frederic Series, John A Fleetham, Fernanda R Almeida\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/13993003.01100-2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Adherence to Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea (OSA) continues to be low with high termination rates. Alternative therapies to CPAP are needed.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare objective adherence to CPAP and Mandibular Advancement Splints (MAS) and to evaluate their effectiveness. Additionally, to identify treatment usage patterns and the clinical effectiveness of having both therapies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multi-center, double-randomized, three-phase trial (titration/cross-over/observation) was conducted at three Canadian universities. Eligible participants were treatment-naïve with mild to severe OSA.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Primary outcome was objectively measured adherence (hours/night) during cross-over phase. Secondary outcomes included efficacy during cross-over phase; adherence during observational phase; patient-centered outcomes, blood pressure and side-effects during cross-over and observational phases. Duration of cross-over and observational phases were 2.5 and 6 months respectively.Eighty-one participants were enrolled in the first randomization. Seventy-nine entered the adaptation/titration phase [mean age (sd); 52·3 (10·8) years, 58 males], 73 entered the cross-over phase (included in the intention-to-treat analysis) and 64 completed the observation phase. Mean objective adherence over 1-month, MAS showed higher adherence than CPAP, 6·0 <i>versus</i> 5·3 h/night (difference= 0·7 h/night, 95% CI: 0·3-1·2 h, p<0·001). Mean CPAP-MAS difference (95% CI) in efficacy of 10·4 (7·8-13) events/hour, p<0·001. During the observation phase 55% (35/64) of participants chose to alternate therapies. All treatments led to substantial improvement in patient-centered outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the higher efficacy of CPAP and higher adherence to MAS, both demonstrate comparable clinical effectiveness on patient-centered outcomes. Having both CPAP and MAS can improve long-term management of OSA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01100-2024\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01100-2024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:持续气道正压通气(CPAP)治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)的依从性仍然很低,终止率很高。需要CPAP的替代疗法。目的:比较CPAP和下颌前移夹板(MAS)的客观依从性,并评价其有效性。此外,确定治疗使用模式和两种治疗的临床效果。方法:在加拿大三所大学进行多中心、双随机、三期(滴定/交叉/观察)试验。符合条件的参与者为treatment-naïve,患有轻度至重度OSA。测量和主要结果:主要结果是客观测量交叉期依从性(小时/夜)。次要结局包括交叉期的疗效;观察期依从性;以患者为中心的结果,在交叉和观察阶段的血压和副作用。交叉期和观察期分别为2.5个月和6个月。81名参与者参加了第一次随机分组。79例进入适应/滴定期[平均年龄(sd);52.3(10.8)岁,男性58例],73例进入交叉期(纳入意向治疗分析),64例完成观察期。在1个月的平均客观依从性中,MAS的依从性高于CPAP,分别为6.0 h/夜和5.3 h/夜(差异= 0.7 h/夜,95% CI: 0.3 - 2.0 h)。结论:尽管CPAP的疗效更高,MAS的依从性也更高,但在以患者为中心的结局方面,两者的临床疗效相当。同时进行CPAP和MAS可以改善OSA的长期管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Mandibular Advancement Splints: The CHOICE Multi-center Open-Label Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Adherence to Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea (OSA) continues to be low with high termination rates. Alternative therapies to CPAP are needed.

Objectives: To compare objective adherence to CPAP and Mandibular Advancement Splints (MAS) and to evaluate their effectiveness. Additionally, to identify treatment usage patterns and the clinical effectiveness of having both therapies.

Methods: This multi-center, double-randomized, three-phase trial (titration/cross-over/observation) was conducted at three Canadian universities. Eligible participants were treatment-naïve with mild to severe OSA.

Measurements and main results: Primary outcome was objectively measured adherence (hours/night) during cross-over phase. Secondary outcomes included efficacy during cross-over phase; adherence during observational phase; patient-centered outcomes, blood pressure and side-effects during cross-over and observational phases. Duration of cross-over and observational phases were 2.5 and 6 months respectively.Eighty-one participants were enrolled in the first randomization. Seventy-nine entered the adaptation/titration phase [mean age (sd); 52·3 (10·8) years, 58 males], 73 entered the cross-over phase (included in the intention-to-treat analysis) and 64 completed the observation phase. Mean objective adherence over 1-month, MAS showed higher adherence than CPAP, 6·0 versus 5·3 h/night (difference= 0·7 h/night, 95% CI: 0·3-1·2 h, p<0·001). Mean CPAP-MAS difference (95% CI) in efficacy of 10·4 (7·8-13) events/hour, p<0·001. During the observation phase 55% (35/64) of participants chose to alternate therapies. All treatments led to substantial improvement in patient-centered outcomes.

Conclusions: Despite the higher efficacy of CPAP and higher adherence to MAS, both demonstrate comparable clinical effectiveness on patient-centered outcomes. Having both CPAP and MAS can improve long-term management of OSA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Respiratory Journal
European Respiratory Journal 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
27.50
自引率
3.30%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Respiratory Journal (ERJ) is the flagship journal of the European Respiratory Society. It has a current impact factor of 24.9. The journal covers various aspects of adult and paediatric respiratory medicine, including cell biology, epidemiology, immunology, oncology, pathophysiology, imaging, occupational medicine, intensive care, sleep medicine, and thoracic surgery. In addition to original research material, the ERJ publishes editorial commentaries, reviews, short research letters, and correspondence to the editor. The articles are published continuously and collected into 12 monthly issues in two volumes per year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信