Efficacy and Compliance of the Mandibular Advancement Devices ONIRIS® vs. Custom Made Devices
- Conditions
- Obstructive Sleep Apnea
- Interventions
- Device: TALIDevice: ONIRIS®
- Registration Number
- NCT02348970
- Lead Sponsor
- ONIRIS
- Brief Summary
To evaluate the efficacy (non-inferiority) in terms of response between patients using custom fitted mandibular advancement devices ONIRIS® and patient using laboratory custom made devices TALI, after 2 months of use. Sleeping tests were performed.
- Detailed Description
Open, non-inferiority, controlled and rndomised clinical trial. Six months of inclusion. Each included patient will be followed during 12 months.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 211
- patients with severe syndrome of obstructive sleep apnea and hypopneas refusing or withdrawal from continuous positive pression ventilation
- no dental, paro-dental or articular contraindication
- patients never treated by mandibular advancement devices
- severe psychiatric or neuromuscular disorders appreciated by the investigator
- more than 20% of apneas and central hypoapneas
- severe syndrome of obstructive sleep apnea and hypopneas with IAH > 30% associated with another sleeping pathology
- BMI > 30kg/m2
- patient with an uncontrollable nausea reflex
- epileptic patients
- pregnant patients
- patient without written informed consent
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description laboratory devices TALI TALI The patients will use the laboratory devices TALI mandibular advancement devices ONIRIS® ONIRIS® The patients will use the mandibular advancement devices ONIRIS®
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method To evaluate the efficacity (non-inferiority) in terms of response between patients using mandibular advancement devices ONIRIS® and patient using devices produced in a laboratoryTALI after 2 months of use. 2 monthes of use The response to the treatment is defined as:
* complete patient response: AHI per hour of sleep \< 10 or
* partial patient response: AHI per hour of sleep reduced by 50% at visit M2 compared to baseline
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Evolution of tolerance at M2, M6 and M12 Nature, frequency and intensity of AE at each visit
Evolution of the quality of life at baseline, M2, M6 and M12 Quality of life evaluated by SF12 at each visit
AE and SAE occuring during the study at M2, M6 and M12 Description and comparison at each group of AE and SAE
Evolution of AHI, AI and HI at M2 and at M12 AHI per hour of sleep with the same modalities as the one used for diagnosis (realised by ambulatory PG or PSG)
Percentage of patients responder at M2 and M12 Percentage of patients responder at the last control exam
Evolution during the study of the principal criteria concerning the sleep at baseline, M2, M6 and M12 Snoring measured by VAS, Epworth Sleepness Scale measuring daytime sleepness, Pichot Questionnaire measuring fatigue and depression
Evolution of the compliance at M2, M6 and M12 Percantage of compliance (excellent \> 85%, good \> 50%)
Evolution of arterial hypertension at baseline, M2, M6 and M12 Arterial hypertension evaluated at each visit
Trial Locations
- Locations (8)
CHU de Grenoble
🇫🇷La Tronche, France
Clinique Bel-Air
🇫🇷Bordeaux, France
Polyclinique Saint Privat
🇫🇷Boujan sur Libron, France
Hôpital André Mignot
🇫🇷Le Chesnay, France
CHU Montpellier
🇫🇷Montpellier, France
Medical Practice
🇫🇷Perpignan, France
Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild
🇫🇷Paris, France
Centre Cardiologique du Nord
🇫🇷St Denis, France