A crossover randomised controlled trial of oral mandibular advancement devices for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO). Issue 10 (17th July 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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; Morrell, Mary J; Glover, Matthew J; Fox-Rushby, Julia A; Sharples, Linda D
• Is Part Of: Thorax. Volume 69:Issue 10(2014)
• Page Start: 938
• Page End: 945
• Publication Date: 2014-07-17
• Subjects: Sleep apnoea; Chest -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Thorax; Chest -- Diseases; Periodicals; Periodicals; 617.54
• DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205464
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0040-6376

Abstract

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 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.