IMPORTANCE Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with higher levels of blood pressure (BP), which can lead to increased cardiovascular risk.OBJECTIVE To compare the association of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), mandibular advancement devices (MADs), and inactive control groups (placebo or no treatment) with changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.DATA SOURCES The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to the end of August 2015 and study bibliographies were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials comparing the effect of CPAP or MADs (vs each other or an inactive control) on BP in patients with obstructive sleep apnea were selected by consensus. Of 872 studies initially identified, 51 were selected for analysis.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A network meta-analysis using multivariate random-effects meta-regression was used to estimate pooled differences between each intervention. Meta-regression was used to assess the association between trial characteristics and the reported effects of CPAP vs inactive control.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Absolute change in SBP and DBP from baseline to follow-up. RESULTSOf the 51 studies included in the analysis (4888 patients), 44 compared CPAP with an inactive control, 3 compared MADs with an inactive control, 1 compared CPAP with an MAD, and 3 compared CPAP, MADs, and an inactive control. Compared with an inactive control, CPAP was associated with a reduction in SBP of 2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.5 to 3.5 mm Hg; P < .001) and in DBP of 2.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.7 mm Hg; P < .001). A 1-hour-per-night increase in mean CPAP use was associated with an additional reduction in SBP of 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3 mm Hg; P < .001) and an additional reduction in DBP of 0.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4 mm Hg; P = .001). Compared with an inactive control, MADs were associated with a reduction in SBP of 2.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.4 mm Hg; P = .002) and in DBP of 1.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.5 to 3.2 mm Hg; P = .008). There was no significant difference between CPAP and MADs in their association with change in SBP (−0.5 mm Hg [95% CI, −2.0 to 1.0 mm Hg]; P = .55) or in DBP (−0.2 mm Hg [95% CI, −1.6 to 1.3 mm Hg]; P = .82). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEAmong patients with obstructive sleep apnea, both CPAP and MADs were associated with reductions in BP. Network meta-analysis did not identify a statistically significant difference between the BP outcomes associated with these therapies.

On-line analysis of exhaled breath offers insight into a person's metabolism without the need for sample preparation or sample collection. Due to its non-invasive nature and the possibility to sample continuously, the analysis of breath has great clinical potential. The unique features of this technology make it an attractive candidate for applications in medicine, beyond the task of diagnosis. We review the current methodologies for on-line breath analysis, discuss current and future applications, and critically evaluate challenges and pitfalls such as the need for standardization. Special emphasis is given to use of the technology in diagnosing respiratory diseases, potential niche applications, and the promise of breath analysis for personalized medicine. The analytical methodologies used range from very small and low-cost chemical sensors, which are ideal for continuous monitoring of disease status, to optical spectroscopy and state-of-the-art, high-resolution mass spectrometry. The latter can be utilized for untargeted analysis of exhaled breath, with the capability to identify hitherto unknown molecules. The interpretation of the resulting big data sets is complex and often constrained due to a limited number of participants. Even larger data sets will be needed for assessing reproducibility and for validation of biomarker candidates. In addition, molecular structures and quantification of compounds are generally not easily available from on-line measurements and require complementary measurements, for example, a separation method coupled to mass spectrometry. Furthermore, lack of standardization still hampers using the technique for screening larger cohorts of patients. The present review summarizes the present status and continuous improvements of the main on-line breath analysis methods, and evaluates obstacles for its wider application.

NCT02050425 (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov).

NCT02435745.