Oral melatonin for non-respiratory sleep disturbance in children with neurodisabilities: systematic review and meta-analyses.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for managing non-respiratory sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities. METHOD: We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched 16 databases, grey literature, and reference lists of included papers up to February 2017. Data were extracted and assessed for quality by two researchers (B.B., C.M., G.S., A.S., A.P.). RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included, all evaluating oral melatonin. All except one were at high or unclear risk of bias. There was a statistically significant increase in diary-reported total sleep time for melatonin compared with placebo (pooled mean difference 29.6min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9-52.4, p=0.01). Statistical heterogeneity was high (97%). For the single RCT with low risk of bias, the unadjusted mean difference in total sleep time was 13.2 minutes (95% CI -13.3 to 39.7) favouring melatonin, while the mean difference adjusted for baseline total sleep time was statistically significant (22.4min, 95% CI 0.5-44.3, p=0.04). Adverse event profile suggested that melatonin was well-tolerated. INTERPRETATION: There is a paucity of evidence on managing sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities, and it is mostly of limited scope and poor quality. There is evidence of the benefit and safety of melatonin compared with placebo, although the extent of this benefit is unclear. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Melatonin for the management of non-respiratory sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities was well tolerated with minimal adverse effects. The extent of benefit and which children might benefit most from melatonin use is uncertain. Benefit may be greatest in those with autism spectrum disorder; however, this finding should be interpreted with caution.

Melatonina oral para la alteración del sueño no respiratoria en niños con trastornos del neurodesarrollo: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis OBJETIVO: Evaluar la efectividad de las intervenciones farmacológicas para el tratamiento de los trastornos del sueño no respiratorios en niños con trastornos del neurodesarrollo. MÉTODO: Se realizó una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis de ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA). Se realizaron búsquedas en 16 bases de datos, literatura gris y listas de referencias de los artículos incluidos hasta febrero de 2.017. Dos investigadores extrajeron y evaluaron la calidad de la calidad. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron trece ensayos, todos evaluaron la melatonina oral. Todos excepto uno tenía un riesgo alto o incierto de sesgo. Hubo un aumento estadísticamente significativo en el tiempo total de sueño informado por los registros - usando diarios de datos - para la melatonina en comparación con el placebo (diferencia de medias agrupada 29,6 min, intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95% [IC] 6,9-52,4, p = 0,01). La heterogeneidad estadística fue alta (97%). Para el ECA único con bajo riesgo de sesgo, la diferencia media no ajustada en el tiempo total de sueño fue de 13,2 minutos (IC del 95% −13,3 a 39,7) favoreciendo a la melatonina, mientras que la diferencia media ajustada para el tiempo total de sueño basal fue estadísticamente significativa (22,4 min. IC del 95%: 0,5-44,3, p = 0,04). El perfil de eventos adversos sugirió que la melatonina fue bien tolerada. INTERPRETACIÓN: Existe una escasez de evidencia sobre el manejo de los trastornos del sueño en niños con trastornos del neurodesarrollo, los datos actuales son principalmente de alcance limitado y de mala calidad. Existe evidencia del beneficio y la seguridad de la melatonina en comparación con el placebo, aunque el alcance de este beneficio no está claro.

Melatonina oral para distúrbios não-respiratórios do sono em crianças com neuro-incapacidades: revisão sistemática e metanálise OBJETIVO: Avaliar a efetividade de intervenções farmacológicas para o manejo de distúrbios não-respiratórios do sono em crianças com neuro-incapacidades. MÉTODO: Realizamos uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs). Buscamos 16 bases de dados, literatura cinzenta, e listas de referências dos artigos incluídos até fevereiro de 2017. Os dados foram extraídos e avaliados quanto a sua qualidade por dois pesquisadores. RESULTADOS: Treze estudos foram incluídos, todos avaliando a melatonina oral. Todos, com exceção de um, tinham risco de viés alto ou não esclarecido. Houve aumento estatisticamente significativo no tempo total de sono reportado em diário para melatonina comparada com placebo (diferença média agrupada 29,6min, intervalo de confiança [IC] 95% 6,9-52,4, p = 0,01). A heterogeneidade estatística foi alta (97%). Para o único ECR com baixo risco de viés, a diferença média não ajustada no tempo total de sono foi 13,2 minutos (IC 95% −13,3 a 39,7) em favor da melatonina, enquanto a diferença média ajustada para o tempo total de sono na linha de base foi estatisticamente significativa (22,4min, IC 95% 0,5-44,3, p = 0,04). O perfil de eventos adversos sugeriu que a melatonina foi bem tolerada. INTERPRETAÇÃO: Há escassez de evidência sobre o manejo de distúrbios do sono em crianças com neuroincapacidades, e a mesma tem escopo limitado e pouca qualidade. Há evidência do benefício e segurança da melatonina comparada com o placebo, embora e extensão do benefício não esteja clara.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for non-respiratory sleep disturbance in children with neurodisabilities: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the most appropriate ways to manage non-respiratory sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities (NDs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of NHS-relevant pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to manage sleep disturbance in children and young people with NDs, who have non-respiratory sleep disturbance. DATA SOURCES: Sixteen databases, including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE, were searched up to February 2017, and grey literature searches and hand-searches were conducted. REVIEW METHODS: For pharmacological interventions, only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. For non-pharmacological interventions, RCTs, non-randomised controlled studies and before-and-after studies were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed by two researchers. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Data on parents' and children's experiences of receiving a sleep disturbance intervention were collated into themes and reported narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included. Sample sizes ranged from 5 to 244 participants. Thirteen RCTs evaluated oral melatonin. Twenty-six studies (12 RCTs and 14 before-and-after studies) evaluated non-pharmacological interventions, including comprehensive parent-directed tailored (n = 9) and non-tailored (n = 8) interventions, non-comprehensive parent-directed interventions (n = 2) and other non-pharmacological interventions (n = 7). All but one study were reported as having a high or unclear risk of bias, and studies were generally poorly reported. There was a statistically significant increase in diary-reported total sleep time (TST), which was the most commonly reported outcome for melatonin compared with placebo [pooled mean difference 29.6 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.9 to 52.4 minutes; p = 0.01]; however, statistical heterogeneity was extremely high (97%). For the single melatonin study that was rated as having a low risk of bias, the mean increase in TST was 13.2 minutes and the lower CI included the possibility of reduced sleep time (95% CI -13.3 to 39.7 minutes). There was mixed evidence about the clinical effectiveness of the non-pharmacological interventions. Sixteen studies included interventions that investigated the feasibility, acceptability and/or parent or clinician views of sleep disturbance interventions. The majority of these studies reported the 'family experience' of non-pharmacological interventions. LIMITATIONS: Planned subgroup analysis was possible in only a small number of melatonin trials. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence of benefit for melatonin compared with placebo, but the degree of benefit is uncertain. There are various types of non-pharmacological interventions for managing sleep disturbance; however, clinical and methodological heterogeneity, few RCTs, a lack of standardised outcome measures and risk of bias means that it is not possible to draw conclusions with regard to their effectiveness. Future work should include the development of a core outcome, further evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and research exploring the prevention of, and methods for identifying, sleep disturbance. Research mapping current practices and exploring families' understanding of sleep disturbance and their experiences of obtaining help may facilitate service provision development. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016034067. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Non-pharmacological interventions for non-respiratory sleep disturbance in children with neurodisabilities: a systematic review.

AIM: To describe existing evidence on non-pharmacological interventions to manage sleep disturbance in children with neurodisabilities. METHOD: We systematically reviewed non-pharmacological interventions aimed at improving non-respiratory sleep disturbance in children with neurodisability. Sixteen databases, grey literature, and reference lists of included papers were searched up to February 2017. Two researchers (B.B., C.M., G.S., A.S., A.P.) undertook screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included: 11 randomized controlled trials and 14 before-and-after studies. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias. Parent-directed interventions were categorized as comprehensive tailored interventions (n=9), comprehensive non-tailored interventions (n=8), and non-comprehensive interventions (n=2). Six 'other' non-pharmacological interventions were included. Seventy-one child and parent sleep-related outcomes were measured across the included studies. We report the two most commonly measured outcomes: the Child Sleep Habits Questionnaire and sleep onset latency. Five studies reported significant improvements on at least one of these outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Various types of non-pharmacological intervention for managing sleep disturbance have been evaluated. Clinical heterogeneity and poor study quality meant we could not draw definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of these interventions. Current clinical guidance recommends parent-directed interventions as the first approach to managing sleep disturbance; prioritizing research in this area is recommended. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Existing evidence on non-pharmacological interventions to manage sleep disturbance in children with neurodisabilities is predominately of poor quality. Most included studies evaluated parent-directed interventions of varying content and intensity. There was very little consistency between studies in the outcome measures used. There is some evidence that parent-directed interventions may improve child outcomes.