Key result
Mandibular advancement device proves non-inferior to CPAP for lowering 24-hour mean arterial BP.
Why the study?
CPAP adherence is often suboptimal, and there is limited evidence comparing the efficacy of a mandibular advancement device versus CPAP on blood pressure reduction in obstructive sleep apnoea.
Does a mandibular advancement device reduce 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure in Asian patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and hypertension compared to CPAP?
RCT (n=220)
1:1 adaptive randomisation with permuted blocks
Does a mandibular advancement device reduce 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure in Asian patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and hypertension compared to CPAP?
This trial protocol describes a randomized non-inferiority study comparing a mandibular advancement device to CPAP for reducing 24-hour blood pressure in Asian patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and hypertension.
Will test non-inferiority of mandibular advancement device to CPAP for 24-hour BP; extends evidence to Asian patients with OSA and hypertension.
Introduction Although treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) reduces blood pressure (BP), adherence to CPAP is often suboptimal. A mandibular advancement device (MAD) is a guideline-endorsed alternative therapy for OSA. Still, there is limited evidence on the relative efficacy between MAD and CPAP on BP reduction. We evaluate whether treatment of moderate-to-severe OSA using MAD can improve BP and other health-related outcomes compared with CPAP. Methods and analysis This is a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial conducted. We will recruit 220 Asians with a history of hypertension and high cardiovascular risk for an overnight polysomnography screening. Those with moderate-to-severe OSA (apnoea–hypopnoea index ≥15 events/hour) will be randomised to treatment with either MAD or CPAP in a 1:1 ratio. Stratified by age (60 vs <60 years old), body mass index (25 vs <25 kg/m 2 ) and apnoea–hypopnoea index (30 vs <30 events/hour), an adaptive randomisation scheme with permuted blocks constructed in real-time is implemented to restrict imbalance. The overall study duration is 12 months. The primary endpoint is the 24-hour mean arterial BP difference between baseline and 6-month follow-up. The secondary endpoints include other measures of ambulatory BP monitoring, arrhythmia based on a 4-day electrocardiographic monitoring, biomarker and proteomic analysis, cardiovascular magnetic resonance-derived myocardial fibrosis and remodelling and quality-of-life questionnaires. Recruitment began in October 2019 and ended in December 2022. Comparison between MAD and CPAP will be performed using covariance (ANCOVA) analysis of the changes in 24-hour mean arterial BP while adjusting for the baseline 24-hour mean arterial BP. We will compare the 95% CIs around the treatment difference point estimate with the prespecified non-inferiority margin (1.5 mm Hg). If the upper limit of the 95% CI is <1.5 mm Hg and crosses 0, non-inferiority of the MAD relative to CPAP will be established. Ethics and dissemination The Domain Specific Review Board-C, National Healthcare Group under approved the study protocol (NHG DSRB Ref: 2019/00359, approved on 28 August 2019). Study findings will be disseminated to various local, national, and international audiences through abstract presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04119999 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ou et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Obstructive sleep apnoea and hypertension (n=220). Mandibular advancement device (MAD) vs. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was evaluated on 24-hour mean arterial BP difference between baseline and 6-month follow-up. The CRESCENT trial is a randomized protocol evaluating whether a mandibular advancement device is non-inferior to CPAP in lowering 24-hour mean arterial blood pressure (margin 1.5 mm Hg).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: