English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Delayed sleep-wake phase disorder (DSWPD) is common, debilitating, and challenging to treat. In an ongoing randomized trial, we are comparing exogenous melatonin treatment outcomes in DSWPD participants for whom dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) is measured objectively vs. estimated. Methods Thus far, 13 participants (27±6 years old, 67% female) have completed a randomized, controlled, double-blind 4-week trial of 0.5 mg of exogenous melatonin timed to either 3 h before measured DLMO (M-DLMO, n = 6) or 3 h before DLMO estimated at 2 h before average sleep onset time based on at least 7 days of wrist actigraphy and sleep diary (E-DLMO, n = 7). All participants met International Classification of Sleep Disorders-3 diagnostic criteria for DSWPD and were otherwise healthy. Participants completed 4 weekly treatment sessions with a blinded psychologist; time of melatonin administration and bed-rise schedule were advanced up to 1 h/week. A validated home saliva collection kit measured DLMO in all participants. Between-group t-tests and Hedges’ g effect sizes (ES) were calculated at post-treatment for the following outcomes: DLMO; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) global score; Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ); and the actigraphy parameters sleep efficiency (SE) and clock time of sleep onset and offset. A paired-sample t-test compared the measured vs. estimated DLMO at baseline. Results The M-DLMO group had a 65±88 mins DLMO advance vs. 27±30 mins in the E-DLMO group (ES=0.51 p=.381). PSQI scores were similar between groups (M-DLMO=6.67±2.06, E-DLMO=7.1± 1.57, ES=-0.24, p=.646), as were MEQ scores (M-DLMO=43±4.98, E-DLMO=48±12.72, ES=-0.47, p=.387). Sleep onset time (M-DLMO=0:32±1:02, E-DLMO=0:31±1:38, ES=0.01, p=.98) and offset time (M-DLMO=8:05±1:03, E-DLMO=8:08±2:14, ES=-0.02, p=.968) were similar between the groups, although sleep was more efficient in M-DLMO vs. E-DLMO (84%±3% vs. 76%±10%, ES=0.94, p=.096). On average, baseline measured DLMO occurred 123±83 mins earlier than estimated DLMO (p=.001). Conclusion We are continuing to enroll participants in this trial. Preliminary results suggest some potential benefit of measuring the DLMO, but results will need to be clarified in a larger sample. Support American Sleep Medicine Foundation Strategic Research Award

0039 The Clinical Utility of Dim Light Melatonin Onset in Treatment of Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder: Preliminary Findings