A randomised comparison of oral desmopressin lyophilisate (MELT) and tablet formulations in children and adolescents with primary nocturnal enuresis.

Lottmann H, Froeling F, Alloussi S, El-Radhi AS, Rittig S, Riis A, Persson BE

International journal of clinical practice26 Jul 2007Cited by 45 (Europe PMC)

PMID17655682DOI10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01493.xPepBankPUB-17655682

Publisher page PubMedAsk about this study

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study7

7 results from studies that gave the peptide. 7 results from people.

01HumanRandomized controlled trialOther
In children and adolescents with enuresis, 56% preferred desmopressin MELT versus 44% preferring tablets (p = 0.112).
In plain wordsIn children and adolescents with bedwetting, 56% preferred desmopressin MELT versus 44% preferring tablets, without a significant difference.
Peptide
Desmopressin
Outcome
No significant changeOverall formulation preference
Study
n = 221
Comparator
Desmopressin tablet
Outcome group
Treatment Acceptability · Kidney and urinary
Studied dose
120/240 microg MELT; 0.2/0.4 mg tablets · sublingual MELT; oral tablet · 3 weeks per formulationAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Patients preferring formulation
56%
Desmopressin MELT
Patients preferring formulation
44%
Desmopressin tablet
Source sentences
Summary
Overall, patients preferred the MELT formulation to the tablet (56% vs. 44%; p = 0.112).
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This open-label, randomised, cross-over study evaluated the preference of children and adolescents with PNE for sublingual desmopressin oral lyophilisate (MELT) vs. tablet treatment, and the efficacy, safety, compliance and ease of use associated with each formulation.
Summary · context
In total, 221 patients aged 5-15 years who were already receiving desmopressin tablets were randomised 1 : 1 to receive desmopressin treatment in the order MELT/tablet (n = 110) or tablet/MELT (n = 111) for 3 weeks each.
Summary · context
Each formulation was administered in bioequivalent doses (0.2/0.4 mg tablets identical with 120/240 microg MELT).
Report a problemFND-1765568201
02HumanRandomized controlled trialOther
In children and adolescents with enuresis, desmopressin formulation preference depended on age (p = 0.006).
In plain wordsIn children and adolescents with bedwetting, preference for desmopressin formulations depended on age.
Peptide
Desmopressin
Outcome
Not applicableAge-dependent preference
Study
n = 221
Comparator
Desmopressin tablet
Outcome group
Treatment Acceptability · Kidney and urinary
Studied dose
120/240 microg MELT; 0.2/0.4 mg tablets · sublingual MELT; oral tablet · 3 weeks per formulationAs given in this study (human).
Source sentences
Summary
This preference was age dependent (p = 0.006); patients aged < 12 years had a statistically significant preference for desmopressin MELT (p = 0.0089).
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This open-label, randomised, cross-over study evaluated the preference of children and adolescents with PNE for sublingual desmopressin oral lyophilisate (MELT) vs. tablet treatment, and the efficacy, safety, compliance and ease of use associated with each formulation.
Summary · context
In total, 221 patients aged 5-15 years who were already receiving desmopressin tablets were randomised 1 : 1 to receive desmopressin treatment in the order MELT/tablet (n = 110) or tablet/MELT (n = 111) for 3 weeks each.
Summary · context
Each formulation was administered in bioequivalent doses (0.2/0.4 mg tablets identical with 120/240 microg MELT).
Report a problemFND-1765568202
03HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In children and adolescents, efficacy was similar with desmopressin MELT and tablets: 1.88 +/- 1.94 versus 1.90 +/- 1.85 bedwetting episodes/week.
In plain wordsIn children and adolescents, bedwetting frequency was similar with desmopressin MELT and tablets.
Peptide
Desmopressin
Outcome
No significant changeBedwetting episodes
Study
n = 221
Comparator
Desmopressin tablet
Outcome group
Enuresis · Kidney and urinary
Studied dose
120/240 microg MELT; 0.2/0.4 mg tablets · sublingual MELT; oral tablet · 3 weeks per formulationAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Bedwetting episodes per week (mean)
1.88 episodes/week
Desmopressin MELT; reported as 1.88 +/- 1.94
Bedwetting episodes per week (mean)
1.9 episodes/week
Desmopressin tablet; reported as 1.90 +/- 1.85
Source sentences
Summary
Efficacy was similar for both formulations (MELT: 1.88 +/- 1.94 bedwetting episodes/week; tablet: 1.90 +/- 1.85 episodes/week).
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This open-label, randomised, cross-over study evaluated the preference of children and adolescents with PNE for sublingual desmopressin oral lyophilisate (MELT) vs. tablet treatment, and the efficacy, safety, compliance and ease of use associated with each formulation.
Summary · context
In total, 221 patients aged 5-15 years who were already receiving desmopressin tablets were randomised 1 : 1 to receive desmopressin treatment in the order MELT/tablet (n = 110) or tablet/MELT (n = 111) for 3 weeks each.
Summary · context
Each formulation was administered in bioequivalent doses (0.2/0.4 mg tablets identical with 120/240 microg MELT).
Report a problemFND-1765568204
04HumanRandomized controlled trialOther
In children and adolescents with enuresis, ease of use was high for both desmopressin MELT and tablets.
In plain wordsIn children and adolescents with bedwetting, both desmopressin formulations were easy to use.
Peptide
Desmopressin
Outcome
Not applicableEase of use
Study
n = 221
Comparator
Desmopressin tablet
Outcome group
Treatment Acceptability · Kidney and urinary
Studied dose
120/240 microg MELT; 0.2/0.4 mg tablets · sublingual MELT; oral tablet · 3 weeks per formulationAs given in this study (human).
Source sentences
Summary
Ease of use of both formulations was high.
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This open-label, randomised, cross-over study evaluated the preference of children and adolescents with PNE for sublingual desmopressin oral lyophilisate (MELT) vs. tablet treatment, and the efficacy, safety, compliance and ease of use associated with each formulation.
Summary · context
In total, 221 patients aged 5-15 years who were already receiving desmopressin tablets were randomised 1 : 1 to receive desmopressin treatment in the order MELT/tablet (n = 110) or tablet/MELT (n = 111) for 3 weeks each.
Summary · context
Each formulation was administered in bioequivalent doses (0.2/0.4 mg tablets identical with 120/240 microg MELT).
Report a problemFND-1765568205
05HumanRandomized controlled trialOther
In children and adolescents with enuresis, compliance of at least 80% occurred in 94.5% with MELT versus 88.9% with tablets (p = 0.059).
In plain wordsIn children and adolescents with bedwetting, compliance was 94.5% with MELT versus 88.9% with tablets, without a significant difference.
Peptide
Desmopressin
Outcome
No significant changeCompliance
Study
n = 221
Comparator
Desmopressin tablet
Outcome group
Treatment Acceptability · Kidney and urinary
Studied dose
120/240 microg MELT; 0.2/0.4 mg tablets · sublingual MELT; oral tablet · 3 weeks per formulationAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Compliance >=80%
94.5%
Desmopressin MELT
Compliance >=80%
88.9%
Desmopressin tablet
Source sentences
Summary
Compliance (> or = 80%) was 94.5% for MELT patients vs. 88.9% for the tablet (p = 0.059).
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This open-label, randomised, cross-over study evaluated the preference of children and adolescents with PNE for sublingual desmopressin oral lyophilisate (MELT) vs. tablet treatment, and the efficacy, safety, compliance and ease of use associated with each formulation.
Summary · context
In total, 221 patients aged 5-15 years who were already receiving desmopressin tablets were randomised 1 : 1 to receive desmopressin treatment in the order MELT/tablet (n = 110) or tablet/MELT (n = 111) for 3 weeks each.
Summary · context
Each formulation was administered in bioequivalent doses (0.2/0.4 mg tablets identical with 120/240 microg MELT).
Report a problemFND-1765568206
06HumanRandomized controlled trialOther
In enuresis patients younger than 12 years, preference significantly favored desmopressin MELT over tablets (p = 0.0089).
In plain wordsIn children younger than 12 years with bedwetting, preference favored desmopressin MELT over tablets.
Peptide
Desmopressin
Outcome
IncreasePreference below age 12
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Desmopressin tablet
Outcome group
Treatment Acceptability · Kidney and urinary
Studied dose
120/240 microg MELT; 0.2/0.4 mg tablets · sublingual MELT; oral tablet · 3 weeks per formulationAs given in this study (human).
Source sentences
Summary
This preference was age dependent (p = 0.006); patients aged < 12 years had a statistically significant preference for desmopressin MELT (p = 0.0089).
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This open-label, randomised, cross-over study evaluated the preference of children and adolescents with PNE for sublingual desmopressin oral lyophilisate (MELT) vs. tablet treatment, and the efficacy, safety, compliance and ease of use associated with each formulation.
Summary · context
In total, 221 patients aged 5-15 years who were already receiving desmopressin tablets were randomised 1 : 1 to receive desmopressin treatment in the order MELT/tablet (n = 110) or tablet/MELT (n = 111) for 3 weeks each.
Summary · context
Each formulation was administered in bioequivalent doses (0.2/0.4 mg tablets identical with 120/240 microg MELT).
Report a problemFND-1765568203
07HumanNon-randomized trialSafety outcome
In children and adolescents receiving desmopressin formulations, no serious or severe adverse events were reported.
In plain wordsIn children and adolescents receiving desmopressin, no serious or severe adverse events were reported.
Peptide
Desmopressin
Outcome
Not applicableSerious or severe adverse events
Study
n = 221
Outcome group
Adverse events · Whole body
Studied dose
120/240 microg MELT; 0.2/0.4 mg tablets · sublingual MELT; oral tablet · 3 weeks per formulationAs given in this study (human).
Source sentences
Summary
No serious/severe adverse events were reported.
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
This open-label, randomised, cross-over study evaluated the preference of children and adolescents with PNE for sublingual desmopressin oral lyophilisate (MELT) vs. tablet treatment, and the efficacy, safety, compliance and ease of use associated with each formulation.
Summary · context
In total, 221 patients aged 5-15 years who were already receiving desmopressin tablets were randomised 1 : 1 to receive desmopressin treatment in the order MELT/tablet (n = 110) or tablet/MELT (n = 111) for 3 weeks each.
Summary · context
Each formulation was administered in bioequivalent doses (0.2/0.4 mg tablets identical with 120/240 microg MELT).
Report a problemFND-1765568207

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

Version 2Current
28 Oct 2026, 02:03 UTC
Study results updated
Version 1
27 Oct 2026, 16:35 UTC
First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

Publication types

MeSH terms

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.