CPAPtalk.com

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

You go in to work tomorrow and kiss your sleep doc's ass.

Lizistired wrote:You go in to work tomorrow and kiss your sleep doc's ass.

Have a good week!

Here is a medical study testing and confirming the scientific basis, from the medical community, of the effectiveness of playing the Didgeridoo as an alternative therapy for sleep apnea, a study undertaken and published by them even though it is unlikely the doctors and scientists derive any financial benefit from Didgeridoo playing.

Didgeridoo playing as alternative treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome: randomised controlled trial

http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7536/266.full



So what is the excuse again for Provent therapy failing to have published medical and scientific studies establishing its effectiveness?

I'm not buying the argument that "Nobody knows how it works!" as an excuse for not having these studies. There are plenty of medical journal articles demonstrating the effectiveness of therapies whose mechanisms are still unknown.

Nate

The difference is that Provent has patents, so only Provent would benefit from studying Provent. They are where PAP-machine makers were at a few decades ago.

Nobody has a patent on the didgeridoo, so studying that without industry funding makes sense.

If nonindustry funding was all that was available, or all that was respected, we would not have CPAP therapy today, in my opinion. It was the potential to make money from PAP machines that got investor money available for the needed scientific studies that proved the effectiveness of PAP therapy.

Yes, industry money makes a study suspect. But the trick is to be able to find the nuggets of useful info in the studies and to let the scientists' peers keep them mostly honest.

Or, I guess, that's the theory anyway.

I personally consider it bascially proven that about 50 percent of patients will see about a 50 percent improvement in AHI with Provent. That won't put CPAP out of business, obviously. But it is still a perfectly respectable outcome for any company in the business of providing alternatives to PAP therapy for those unwilling or unable to use that gold-standard approach to OSA.

NateS wrote: I'm not buying the argument that "Nobody knows how it works!" as an excuse for not having these studies. There are plenty of medical journal articles demonstrating the effectiveness of therapies whose mechanisms are still unknown.

Nate

Nate, There are some wrong impressions in this thread. Studies have been done and submitted for peer review to journals. The FDA has approved Provent and the FDA doesn't give approvals without studies.

See:

The device has been evaluated in multiple published studies including a 19 center, randomized controlled trial published in the journal SLEEP. Provent Therapy safely and effectively treats mild, moderate and severe OSA.

http://www.proventtherapy.com/hcp/

and

http://www.proventtherapy.com/hcp/nasal ... mation.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please have a look at the studies and give us your impression.

I am tempted to try these for short daytime naps, but not as a replacement for my beloved CPAP.

NightMonkey wrote:

NateS wrote: I'm not buying the argument that "Nobody knows how it works!" as an excuse for not having these studies. There are plenty of medical journal articles demonstrating the effectiveness of therapies whose mechanisms are still unknown.

Nate

Nate, There are some wrong impressions in this thread. Studies have been done and submitted for peer review to journals. The FDA has approved Provent and the FDA doesn't give approvals without studies.

See:

The device has been evaluated in multiple published studies including a 19 center, randomized controlled trial published in the journal SLEEP. Provent Therapy safely and effectively treats mild, moderate and severe OSA.

http://www.proventtherapy.com/hcp/

and

http://www.proventtherapy.com/hcp/nasal ... mation.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please have a look at the studies and give us your impression.

I am tempted to try these for short daytime naps, but not as a replacement for my beloved CPAP.

Thank you for pointing this out. I will take a look at these.

Regards, Nate

Well, I read the first couple of these reports and don't feel qualified to criticize them, but since my apnea diagnosis is for central and mixed apnea, I began to wonder how that would fit into the equation.

Suppose I had never had a sleep lab study, but had a problem with snoring and suspected I had sleep apnea.

They say that they will accept an Rx from any doctor or dentist.

If I asked my regular doctor for such a Rx, I am confident he would decline and insist I go to a sleep specialist. But would every doctor do that if the patient was insistent they wanted to try the Provents?

Would my dentist decline and send me to a sleep doctor or would he feel pressured or honored or indifferent to my urgings and just write the script?

Now if by this means I wind up with an Rx for Provent without a sleep lab study, what happens to my undiagnosed centrals while I partially block my exhaled breaths with this valve built in to the Provents?

Assume I don't know I have centrals but I keep using the Provents because I am happy that I "escaped" having to have an xPAP machine? Since increased pressure can cause more centrals, could the Provents cause me to have a more severe condition than I started out with? Will it be cumulative as I continue to use them longer?

What then would be the risks to my health and my life?

On the other hand, suppose the doctor, the dentist and everyone else refuses to write me a RX and sends me to a sleep lab and I am diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea only and no centrals. Are they going to write me an Rx for Provents instead of for a CPAP machine?

Just wondering out loud.

At least one or more of the writers above who bought and used Provents never had a sleep lab study - how do they know they are not having centrals? What risk are they under?

Regards, Nate

jnk wrote:Nobody has a patent on the didgeridoo

Well…………… for a different view on that, take a look at "Gender Prohibition" under the Wikipedia article on the Didgeridoo at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didgeridoo

"Traditionally, only men play the didgeridoo and sing during ceremonial occasions, although both men and women may dance. … On 3 September 2008, however, publisher Harper Collins issued a public apology for its book "The Daring Book for Girls" which openly encouraged girls to play the instrument."

NateS wrote:. . . "Gender Prohibition" . . .

I grew up in a dry county. But fortunately there was no gender prohibition.

NightMonkey wrote:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the fashion of Bill Clinton I would ask Provent Therapy, "How the definition of works works?"

Patients with severe OSA are left with an AHI of 19 (median). This is an event every three minutes so you are still one sick puppy IMO.

But I do give Provent Therapy (Ventus) great kudos for trying. What I suggest next for them are studies where the patient avoids backsleeping while using the Provent device. I expect that this twofold approach will yield significantly better results.

My suggestion to Provent is that they change the interface of their product by putting the valve into a nasal-mask-like system so that it can be worn for months at a time instead of patients' having to attach the product with adhesive to the skin for one night and then discard them. Imagine, for example, a ResMed FX mask with no small hose coming from the pillows--just a valve aimed downward.

I think that is obvious but doubt that Ventus will do it. Another company could do it easily. All they need is a different style valve that is not covered by the Ventus patent.

A full face mask for mouthbreathers would also solve one of NightMonkey's objections.

For either a nasal mask or a full face mask some research would need to be done on CO2 buildup within the mask. Maybe some research already exists?

According to the doc I heard speak about it, most people keep their mouth open while awake with Provent, but for some reason then close their mouths as soon as they are asleep.

I would think the goal would be to have as little space as possible with the pillows. I can't imagine a full-face working with it.

To me, the disposable aspect is just a way to make money. Which is important. But if it would work as a reusable masklike product, it would be nice if it were availabe to patients to use for power-outages or camping, as has been said.

jnk wrote:My suggestion to Provent is that they change the interface of their product by putting the valve into a nasal-mask-like system so that it can be worn for months at a time instead of patients' having to attach the product with adhesive to the skin for one night and then discard them. Imagine, for example, a ResMed FX mask with no small hose coming from the pillows--just a valve aimed downward.

What a novel approach, jnk. I wonder if that design would work for mouth breathers with a FFM since at the end of expiration the back pressure would still be high.