Key result
Mandibular advancement device therapy increases circulating cardiovascular proteins vs CPAP at 6 months.
Why the study?
The biological mechanisms underlying cardiovascular responses to OSA treatment remain unclear, including whether inflammatory and cardiovascular proteomic response profiles differ between MAD and CPAP therapy and whether circulating proteomic markers predict BP response.
Does mandibular advancement device therapy differentially alter inflammatory and cardiovascular proteomic profiles at 6 months compared with CPAP therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and elevated cardiovascular risk?
RCT (n=220)
Randomized
Does mandibular advancement device therapy differentially alter inflammatory and cardiovascular proteomic profiles at 6 months compared with CPAP therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and elevated cardiovascular risk?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with moderate-to-severe OSA and elevated cardiovascular risk, MAD therapy leads to differential expression of specific cardiovascular-related proteins compared with CPAP, while baseline proteomic biomarkers such as OPN, U-PAR, uPA, and NT-proBNP predict blood pressure reductions independently of treatment type or adherence.
Background The the biological mechanisms underlying cardiovascular responses to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment remain unclear. We investigated whether inflammatory and cardiovascular proteomic response profiles differ between Mandibular advancement device (MAD) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) OSA treatment, and whether circulating proteomic markers predict BP response. Methods CRESCENT randomized 220 patients with moderate-to-severe OSA and elevated cardiovascular risk to MAD or CPAP. Inflammatory and cardiovascular Olink proteomic profiles were measured at baseline and 6 months. In primary analysis, we compared 6-months protein levels between MAD and CPAP treatment. In secondary analysis, we estimated the effect of any OSA treatment and treatment adherence on 6-months protein levels, and baseline protein level associations with ambulatory BP outcomes at 6 months. Protein levels were rank-normalized jointly across the two time points. Analyses were adjusted for the baseline levels of the outcome as a covariates. False discovery rate (FDR) correction was applied. Results Follow-up at 6 months was completed by 89.1% of participants in the MAD group and 91.8% in the CPAP group. Overall, the median age is 62.0 years, 85.4% are male, median BMI is 27.7 kg/m2 and median baseline AHI is 39.8 events/hour. Median nightly device use was 5.5 hours for MAD and 5.0 hours for CPAP, with ≥4 h/night adherence achieved by 74.7% and 70.2%, respectively. In primary analysis, MAD therapy was associated with higher concentrations of six cardiovascular-related proteins compared with CPAP, including TFF3 (β = 0.176 standard deviations (SD) FDR = 0.016), uPA (β = 0.303, FDR = 0.016), EPHB4 (β = 0.176, FDR = 0.033), PI3 (β = 0.203, FDR = 0.035), IL-18BP (β = 0.179, FDR = 0.068), and TNF-R2 (β = 0.170, FDR = 0.093). Higher adherence was associated with lower concentrations of inflammatory proteins TNF (β = −0.001SD), IL-24 , and SIRT2, with consistent findings using a ≥4 h/night adherence threshold, regardless of treatment. Baseline cardiovascular proteomic profiles predicted BP responsiveness. Higher baseline OPN was associated with greater reductions in awake and 24-hour systolic BP, awake and 24-hour mean BP and 24-hour pulse pressure. Higher baseline U-PAR and uPA were associated with reductions in systolic BP and pulse pressure. Higher NT-proBNP was associated with reduction in asleep pulse pressure. All associations are independent of treatment assignment and adherence. Conclusions MAD therapy was associated with differential expression of selected cardiovascular-related proteins compared with CPAP, while baseline cardiovascular proteomic profiles predicted BP improvement. OSA treatment adherence is associated with inflammatory proteins.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ou et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea and elevated cardiovascular risk (n=220). Mandibular advancement device (MAD) vs. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was evaluated on 6-month inflammatory and cardiovascular Olink proteomic profiles (uPA β 0.303 SD; TFF3 β 0.176 SD, p=FDR=0.016). Mandibular advancement device therapy increased 6 cardiovascular proteins vs CPAP at 6 months, including uPA (β=0.303 SD, FDR=0.016) and TFF3 (β=0.176 SD, FDR=0.016).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: