No abstract

SummaryObstructive 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.

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the ISI Science Citation Index and is assessed for inclusion in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 08/110/03. The contractual start date was in September 2010. The draft report began editorial review in January 2014 and was accepted for publication in April 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expr...

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.