Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate whether neonates at risk for neurodevelopmental impairment have improved neurodevelopment after docosahexaenoic acid, choline, and uridine-5-monophosphate supplementation versus controls.Method: Recruitment was from UK neonatal units. Eligible for inclusion were infants born at less than 31 weeks' gestation with a weight less than the ninth centile; infants born at less than 31 weeks' gestation with a grade II or higher intraventricular haemorrhage/preterm white matter injury; infants born between 31 weeks' and 40 weeks' gestation plus 28 days with a grade II or higher intraventricular haemorrhage/preterm white matter injury, moderate or severe hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, or defined neuroimaging abnormalities. Treatment/control supplementation was for 2 years (double-blind, randomized, controlled design). Infants were stratified according to sex, gestation, and brain injury severity. Primary outcome was cognitive composite score (CCS) of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III at 24mo). Secondary outcomes were language composite score (LCS) of the Bayley-III, motor composite score (MCS) of the Bayley-III, and Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) score.Results: Sixty-two neonates were recruited, 59 were randomized (34 males, 25 females). Fifty-three started supplementation. Most families found supplementation acceptable. The treatment group CCS-Bayley-III scores were non-significantly higher than controls (mean score difference at 24mo: 9.0; 95% confidence interval -0.2 to 18.2). Language and VABS-II scores, but not motor score, were non-significantly higher in the treatment group.Interpretation: Most families found supplementation feasible. Improved neurodevelopmental outcomes in the treatment group were not statistically significant. A larger multicentre trial exploration is warranted.What This Paper Adds: Dietary supplementation of neonates at risk of neurodevelopmental impairment is feasible. No statistically significant neurodevelopmental advantages were identified for the treatment group compared to controls. Treatment group cognitive and language advantage are of a clinically meaningful magnitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate whether docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), choline, and uridine-5-monophosphate (UMP) supplementation improves neurodevelopmental outcome in infants with suspected cerebral palsy (CP) versus a comparison group of children.Method: Infants aged 1 to 18 months with suspected CP were recruited from UK child development centres. Participants received daily treatment or control supplementation for 2 years (double-blind randomized control design). Stratification was by age, sex, predominant pattern of motor involvement (four limbs or other), and visual impairment (or not). The primary outcome was the cognitive composite score of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (CCS-Bayley-III). Secondary outcomes included language composite and motor composite scores of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III).Results: Forty infants were recruited; 35 began supplementation, 29 completed 1 to 2 years' supplementation. The treatment group CCS-Bayley-III was non-significantly higher than the comparison group (mean 77.7 [SD 19.2] and 72.2 [SD 19.8] respectively, mean modelled difference 4.4 [-2.8, 11.6]). The treatment group language scores, but not motor scores, were non-significantly higher than for the comparison group.Interpretation: Most families found supplementation feasible. No statistically significant differences in neurodevelopmental outcome between the treatment and comparison groups were identified. Further investigation of neurodevelopmental outcome after supplementation with DHA, choline, and UMP of infants with suspected CP is warranted.What This Paper Adds: This was the first trial of phosphatidylcholine precursor supplementation in infants with suspected cerebral palsy (CP). Families of infants with suspected CP found 2-year nutritional supplementation feasible. There was no statistically significant neurodevelopmental advantage for the treatment group versus the comparison group. However, treatment group cognitive and language advantage were of clinically meaningful magnitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]