Is this new iNAP sleep device just as good as CPAP? Any of you try it before or know someone who has?

[ChicagoGranny]

Well, I am!

[chima2g]

Do you want a review from one random individual on the internet? Or do you want the peer-reviewed results of a 35-patient clinical study?

I read the paper some time ago and the results look quite promising. I was hoping to get some unfiltered opinions from actual users.

Almost every night I spit out the mouthpiece.

As it isn't available to buy in the UK, and currently I'd have to travel to America to get one, I really appreciate the feedback.

[zonker]

Well, I am!

and aren't we the lucky ones!

[GrumpyHere]

Or do you want the peer-reviewed results of a 35-patient clinical study?

That small N of 35 is not that far off from accepting advice from intertubes randos like me.

Like the alien hanging off my face when using CPAP, iNAP probably takes more time I gave it to acclimate.

Maybe it was placebo effect, but I did feel a little better with CPAP to convince me to try acclimating. Not so with iNAP

[ChicagoGranny]

I read the paper some time ago and the results look quite promising.

Going by memory, two-thirds achieved an AHI reduction of 50% and one-third did not. Not at all promising in my book.

I would consider it for 15-minute power naps.

[chunkyfrog]

If anyone is paying attention, it looks like this thread was started by a known spammer.
Note the multiple links, and very professional-looking promotional images.

[chima2g]

If CPAP worked for you (as an example) reducing your AHI by 50% and iNAP worked for you (as an example) reducing your AHI by 50% and using them together meant your AHI reduced by a total of 75% then it’s reasonable to say it's promising. Using iNAP as an adjunct treatment could be enough to tip the scale.

For those looking for constructive information on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VF6o1nfaIU&t=1s
I've only read a free version of one of the studies which is available here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33706052/

Anymore unfiltered opinions from actual users (good and definitely bad) would be great.

[chima2g]

If anyone is paying attention, it looks like this thread was started by a known spammer.
Note the multiple links, and very professional-looking promotional images.

lol

[GrumpyHere]

If anyone is paying attention, it looks like this thread was started by a known spammer.

The OP hasn't been back since Dec 2020.

From his posts, it seems like he was an "Ugly American" in Taiwan who was unwilling to listen to advice given by other members.

Also a troll.
He wanted to keep arguing after a thread lock
https://www.cpaptalk.com/viewtopic/t180 ... ssion.html

Note the multiple links, and very professional-looking promotional images.

He was also flailing around about other useless devices as alternative to CPAP.

https://www.cpaptalk.com/viewtopic.php? ... 8#p1371468

[chunkyfrog]

Gone since 2020--probably drowned in DeNile.
A moment of silence, out of respect . . .

[CyberSpiff]

Gone since 2020--probably drowned in DeNile.
A moment of silence, out of respect . . .

<exit lurker mode>

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

<shamefully crawl back to lurker mode after a bad pun>

[clownbell]

If I am reading this correctly, the 35 people in the study achieved average AHI of 41.4 plus or minus 24.3, which implies a range of 27.1 to 65.7. Those are NOT good results. I'll pass.

[ChicagoGranny]

the 35 people in the study achieved average AHI of 41.4 plus or minus 24.3

That was the untreated AHI of the 32 patients.

The treated results are the second clause in the same sentence.

[GrumpyHere]

with response rate defined as 50% reduction in AHI from baseline and treated AHI lower than 20

The biggest flag about the effectiveness of this device is that they picked an AHI of 20 rather than the industry standard of 5 for their response threshold.

The response rate might had been zero if an AHI of 5 was used, for all we know.

As a POC it's fine. But as a finished product marketed to treat obstructive sleep apnea, not good.

Edit (added info):

Even their latest study result from Feb 2021, the mean treated AHI was 8.7
So 62.5% (20/32) of the patients ( 32 - 24 + (24/2)) had AHI ≥ 8.7

Far from what is considered acceptable on this board.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5721001106

Patients
A total of 35 patients provided their consent to participate in this study; however, only 34 patients (30 men [87.5%] and four women [12.50%]) were eligible and randomized to the Clinical Cohort and Safety Cohort. The mean age of the 32 evaluable patients (PE cohort) was 47.4 ± 11.2 years, and their mean BMI was 26.5 ± 3.2 kg/m2.

Measurements and results
The clinical response rate was 75% (24/32 patients) comparing the treatment polysomnography values to the baseline values. The mean (±standard deviation) baseline apnea-hypopnea index was 32.0 ± 11.3 events/h, which decreased significantly to 8.7 ± 9.4 events/h. No medical device-related adverse event or serious adverse event occurred during the study period.