[Treatment of isolated nocturnal enuresis: alarm or desmopressin?]

Monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis is common in healthy school children. Treatment is often required because of social and psychological convenience. We therefore conducted a randomized prospective trial using either desmopressin (D) or alarm (A).

Patients (n = 135) aged 6 to 16 years were enrolled between January 1992 and December 1994. Desmopressin (Minirin spray, Ferring SA) was given intranasally at a dose of 20 micrograms at bedtime and increased to 40 micrograms after 2 weeks if partial result was obtained. The alarm was a pad-bell device (Wet-stop, Sega) and the sound source was attached to the upper part of the pajamas. Inclusion criteria were: primary monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis in healthy children, age > or = 6 years, absence of previous treatment using either desmopressin or alarm. The aim of the treatment was to achieve 100% dry nights. Patients were evaluated after 15 days on therapy by phone call and thereafter by attending the outpatient clinic at 2-3 and 4-6 months. At the time of the second evaluation, a switch from alarm to desmopressin (or vice-versa) was proposed to those who did not respond to the initial treatment.

In group D (n = 62), only 27 children were included since 12 (19%) were switched to alarm and 23 (37%) were excluded because they were either non-compliant or lost to follow-up. In group A (n = 73), only 31 were included since six (8%) were switched to desmopressin and 36 (49%) were excluded for the same reasons as in group D. Prior to inclusion, the percentage of dry nights was 21% in group D and 14% in group A. After 15 days on therapy, patients from group D achieved 80% dry nights compared to 50% in group A (P = 0.001). After 3 months, patients from group D attained 85% dry nights vs 90% in group A. After 6 months, children from group A achieved 94% dry nights vs 78% in group D (P = 0.01).

Desmopressin offers better short-term results than enuresis alarm but the latter is significantly more efficient in the long term. In France, the alarm device is not reimbursed by the national health service and therefore is poorly accepted, as suggested from the high rate of patients lost to follow-up.