Back

Consumer Opinions, Lot-to-Lot Variability, and Pharmacokinetics of Transdermal Melatonin Products: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial

Bonilla, K.; Sherman, V. M.; Arbaiza, A. S.; Dougherty, M.; Olson, L. E.

2026-05-29 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.64898/2026.05.27.26354234 medRxiv
Show abstract

In some countries, melatonin is sold without a physician prescription and dosage is unregulated. Transdermal products have become popular including those marketed for children. We measured consumer assumptions about these products among adult residents of the United States, analyzed lot-to-lot variability, and compared the pharmacokinetics of melatonin administered in oral, lotion, and bath product forms. Survey respondents (n=199) believed oral melatonin was more effective than transdermal products and that all melatonin products were relatively safe. Melatonin lotion products analyzed by HPLC displayed lot-to-lot variability as well as changes in formulation and product claims. To determine pharmacokinetics, three different treatments (oral tablets, lotion, and bath immersion) were administered to twelve undergraduate participants in a randomized, crossover design. Five additional participants completed bath product treatment only. Participants collected saliva samples up to 48 hours after administration, which were analyzed for melatonin by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Oral (n=11) and lotion formulations (n=12) caused maximum salivary melatonin levels within 30 minutes after administration, but bath immersion did not cause increases in saliva melatonin (n=17). The half-life of oral melatonin was 1.17 [0.69 -- 1.65] hours versus 5.72 [3.75 -- 7.68] hours for lotion treatment (p = 0.011, effect size r = 0.770). Melatonin lotion may pose a risk to consumers who assume it is safe and less effective than oral tablets, when in fact it may be very potent and remain at high physiological levels into the following day. This study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06382610) and was funded by the Sleep Research Society.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.