In-home evaluation of efficacy and titration of a mandibular advancement device for obstructive sleep apnea

There is increasing evidence that mandibular advancement devices (MADs) can be an effective treatment for some patients with obstructive sleep apnea, a highly prevalent chronic disease. In this study, the objectives were to objectively assess the effectiveness of MAD therapy using a limited channel recorder, and to develop a model for identifying patients who may be appropriate for MAD therapy as the initial treatment option. Thirty patients were prospectively recruited and studied at two independent dentist offices and the participants’ homes. Subjects wore the ARES Unicorder for two nights before insertion of the MAD, and again when the dentist determined that the patient had reached the titration endpoint. Self-reported measures of depression, sleepiness, and quality of life were obtained pre- and posttreatment. The reviewer was blinded to the study status while the physiological signals were being visually inspected. Significant reductions in the apnea/hypopnea index (AHI), hypoxemia measures, and snoring level were observed posttreatment. Twenty-seven of the 30 (90%) patients had a posttreatment AHI (using a 4% desaturation for hypopneas) below a clinical cut-off of 10. All but one patient (97%) exhibited at least a 50% decrease in AHI or had a posttreatment AHI ≤ 10. Significant differences in body mass index, weight, and neck circumference in patients with posttreatment AHIs above and below a clinical cut-off of five were identified. The linear regression used to predict the posttreatment AHI using pretreatment data resulted in an R2 of 0.68. The model correctly predicted two patients who were unable to obtain a posttreatment AHI of 10 or less. This study was designed to demonstrate two models of collaboration between a dental sleep medicine specialist and a sleep medicine physician in the monitoring of a patient treated with a MAD. The outcome data suggest that the limited channel recording system can be used as an alternative to laboratory polysomnography to reduce the cost of MAD treatment, and to improve the quality and consistency of posttreatment patient care

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans