59 Melatonin Statistics

by

These melatonin figures cover the measurement periods and populations identified in the available source material. Estimates, surveys and forecasts retain their reported scope.

Key Melatonin Statistics

The main findings are:

  • Reported melatonin supplement use among U.S. adults rose from 0.4% in 1999-2000 to 2.1% in 2017-2018 (1999-2000 and 2017-2018; U.S. noninstitutionalized adults aged 20+).
  • In the 2023 AASM survey, 64% of 2,005 U.S. adults said they had ever taken melatonin to help sleep (March 24-29, 2023).
  • A 2023 systematic review included 22 studies with 4,875 participants: 925 received melatonin, 1,804 ramelteon and 2,297 placebo (Literature searched for the review; publication 2023; Adults with insomnia disorder in included trials).
  • The dose-response meta-analysis included 26 double-blind randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2020 (Trials published 1987-2020; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers).
  • U.S. poison centers recorded 260,435 pediatric melatonin ingestions during 2012-2021 (U.S. children and adolescents aged 0-19).
  • Of 27,795 pediatric melatonin-ingestion patients who received care at a health-care facility, 19,892 (71.6%) were discharged (2012-2021; U.S. pediatric poison-center cases receiving facility care).
  • The increase from 0.4% to 2.1% represents a fivefold rise in reported adult melatonin use across the NHANES endpoints (1999-2000 to 2017-2018; U.S. noninstitutionalized adults aged 20+).
  • In the AASM survey, 66% of male respondents and 62% of female respondents reported ever taking melatonin to help sleep (March 24-29, 2023; U.S. adult survey respondents by reported sex).
  • Compared with placebo, prolonged-release melatonin reduced subjective sleep-onset latency by a weighted 6.30 minutes (Included acute insomnia trials; Adults with insomnia disorder).
  • The dose-response analysis included 1,689 observations (Trials published 1987-2020; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers).
  • Pediatric melatonin ingestions rose 530%, from 8,337 in 2012 to 52,563 in 2021 (2012 and 2021; U.S. children and adolescents aged 0-19).
  • Among pediatric melatonin-ingestion patients receiving facility care, 4,097 (14.7%) were hospitalized (2012-2021; U.S. pediatric poison-center cases receiving facility care).
  • The NHANES analysis included 55,021 adults across 10 survey cycles (1999-2000 through 2017-2018; U.S. noninstitutionalized adults aged 20+).
  • The AASM survey’s highest age-group prevalence was 70% among adults aged 35-44 (March 24-29, 2023; U.S. adults aged 35-44).
  • Compared with placebo, prolonged-release melatonin reduced objective sleep-onset latency by a weighted 5.05 minutes (Included acute insomnia trials; Adults with insomnia disorder).

Contents

  • Reported melatonin supplement use among U.S. adults rose from 0.4% in 1999-2000 to 2.1% in 2017-2018 (1999-2000 and 2017-2018; U.S. noninstitutionalized adults aged 20+). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)
  • The increase from 0.4% to 2.1% represents a fivefold rise in reported adult melatonin use across the NHANES endpoints (1999-2000 to 2017-2018; U.S. noninstitutionalized adults aged 20+). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)
  • The NHANES analysis included 55,021 adults across 10 survey cycles (1999-2000 through 2017-2018; U.S. noninstitutionalized adults aged 20+). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)
  • The mean age of participants in the NHANES melatonin-use analysis was 47.5 years, with a standard deviation of 17.1 years (1999-2000 through 2017-2018; U.S. adults in the analytic sample). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)
  • Women made up 52.0% of the NHANES analytic sample (1999-2000 through 2017-2018; U.S. adults in the analytic sample). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)
  • The highest NHANES cycle sample contained 6,214 adults, while the lowest contained 4,865 (1999-2000 through 2017-2018; U.S. adults). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)
  • The 2017-2018 adult-use prevalence estimate was 2.1% with a 95% confidence interval of 1.5%-2.9% (U.S. noninstitutionalized adults aged 20+). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)
  • The 1999-2000 adult-use prevalence estimate was 0.4% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.2%-1.0% (U.S. noninstitutionalized adults aged 20+). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)
  • The study reported that the upward trend began in the 2009-2010 cycle, based on a statistically significant quadratic trend test (P<.001) (1999-2000 through 2017-2018; U.S. adults). (Trends in Use of Melatonin…)

NHANES cross-sectional self-report of supplement use during the prior 30 days.

Derived from the study’s two reported endpoint prevalences; it is not a separate survey estimate.

Sample size is included as context, not evidence of prevalence by itself.

Describes the analytic sample, not all U.S. adults.

Sample composition, not a sex-specific usage rate.

Cycle sample sizes describe survey precision and are not melatonin-user counts.

Weighted NHANES estimate based on recent supplement use and reported dose.

Weighted NHANES estimate; the wide interval reflects the low prevalence at baseline.

A modeled trend in repeated cross-sectional survey estimates, not a longitudinal follow-up of the same people.

Who uses melatonin: age, sex, generation and regional statistics

Online survey of ever-use, not current use or clinically diagnosed insomnia; reported margin of error was ±2 percentage points at 95% confidence.

Online self-report; the survey table lists 997 male and 997 female respondents.

Ever-use to help sleep; age-group sample size was 541.

Online self-report; these are age-group percentages, not population-weighted prevalence estimates.

Online self-report of ever taking melatonin to help sleep.

Online self-report; age-group sample size was 152.

Generation categories and age ranges were defined by the survey; these are not standardized epidemiologic age bands.

The Silent Generation cell contained 16 respondents, so its percentage is imprecise.

Online self-report; region sample sizes ranged from 385 to 701.

Melatonin sleep-outcome statistics from clinical evidence

  • A 2023 systematic review included 22 studies with 4,875 participants: 925 received melatonin, 1,804 ramelteon and 2,297 placebo (Literature searched for the review; publication 2023; Adults with insomnia disorder in included trials). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)
  • Compared with placebo, prolonged-release melatonin reduced subjective sleep-onset latency by a weighted 6.30 minutes (Included acute insomnia trials; Adults with insomnia disorder). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)
  • Compared with placebo, prolonged-release melatonin reduced objective sleep-onset latency by a weighted 5.05 minutes (Included acute insomnia trials; Adults with insomnia disorder). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)
  • Compared with placebo, prolonged-release melatonin increased objective sleep efficiency by a weighted 1.91 percentage points (Included acute insomnia trials; Adults with insomnia disorder). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)
  • Among trials with mean patient age at least 55, prolonged-release melatonin increased objective sleep efficiency by a weighted 2.95 percentage points (Included trials with mean age ≥55; Older adults with insomnia disorder). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)
  • For comparison, ramelteon increased objective total sleep time by 17.9 minutes at 4 weeks versus placebo in the review (Adults with insomnia disorder). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)
  • For comparison, ramelteon reduced objective sleep-onset latency by 14 minutes at 4 weeks versus placebo (Adults with insomnia disorder). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)
  • The review found a 11.7-minute increase in subjective total sleep time for ramelteon at 4 weeks versus placebo (Adults with insomnia disorder). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)
  • The review found a 8.74-minute reduction in subjective sleep-onset latency for ramelteon at 4 weeks versus placebo (Adults with insomnia disorder). (Efficacy of melatonin and ramelteon…)

Study mix primarily evaluated prolonged-release melatonin and also included a different drug, ramelteon.

Meta-analytic estimate; effect was statistically significant at P=.031 and was described as small to medium.

Objective outcome pooled across trials; P<.001.

P=.043; sleep efficiency is time asleep divided by time in bed, not total sleep time.

Subgroup meta-analysis; P<.001 and subgroup results depend on the included trial set.

This is a ramelteon comparator result, not a melatonin result; it should not be attributed to melatonin.

Comparator-drug result included to distinguish evidence; it is not melatonin efficacy.

Ramelteon comparator result; subjective outcome is participant-reported.

Melatonin dose and timing statistics for sleep outcomes

  • The dose-response meta-analysis included 26 double-blind randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2020 (Trials published 1987-2020; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers). (Optimizing the Time and Dose…)
  • The dose-response analysis included 1,689 observations (Trials published 1987-2020; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers). (Optimizing the Time and Dose…)
  • The dose-response curve peaked at 4 mg per day for the combined sleep-promoting outcomes (Included RCTs; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers). (Optimizing the Time and Dose…)
  • Insomnia status significantly predicted sleep-onset latency in meta-regression (β=0.50, P<.001) (Included RCTs; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers). (Optimizing the Time and Dose…)
  • The time between melatonin administration and the sleep episode significantly predicted sleep-onset latency (β=-0.16, P=.023) (Included RCTs; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers). (Optimizing the Time and Dose…)
  • Time of day was the only significant predictor of total sleep time in the meta-regression (β=-0.086, P<.01) (Included RCTs; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers). (Optimizing the Time and Dose…)
  • The modeled optimized schedule was 4 mg administered 3 hours before desired bedtime, compared with the commonly used 2 mg 30 minutes before bedtime schedule (Included RCTs; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers). (Optimizing the Time and Dose…)
  • The systematic review reported 4 mg/day as the dose at which the modeled sleep effect peaked, rather than showing indefinite gains at higher doses (Included RCTs; Patients with insomnia and healthy volunteers). (Optimizing the Time and Dose…)

Included studies varied in dose, timing and participant status.

Observations are not necessarily unique participants; the abstract reports this as the meta-analysis evidence base.

Meta-analytic dose-response peak, not a universal clinical dose recommendation.

Meta-regression association across studies is not a patient-level causal effect.

Study-level meta-regression; timing was heterogeneous across trials.

Study-level result and not proof that one clock time works for every circadian schedule.

Authors’ meta-analytic optimization hypothesis; it should not be treated as individualized medical advice.

The peak is model-dependent and based on heterogeneous RCTs.

Poison-center surveillance counts reported exposures, not confirmed toxic doses or all exposures.

Trend in reports to poison centers; it can reflect changes in use, access, reporting or awareness.

Share of reported poison-center ingestions, not population incidence.

Age group is part of poison-center surveillance denominator.

Reported poison-center ingestions, not confirmed poisoning severity.

Reported poison-center ingestions; percentages may not sum exactly because of rounding/unknown age.

Intent classification in poison-center records; not a measure of product effectiveness or toxicity.

Sex was unknown in 1,262 cases; this is case composition, not sex-specific risk.

Exposure-site reporting in poison-center records.

Melatonin product-form and medical-severity statistics

  • Of 27,795 pediatric melatonin-ingestion patients who received care at a health-care facility, 19,892 (71.6%) were discharged (2012-2021; U.S. pediatric poison-center cases receiving facility care). (Pediatric Melatonin Ingestions — United…)
  • Among pediatric melatonin-ingestion patients receiving facility care, 4,097 (14.7%) were hospitalized (2012-2021; U.S. pediatric poison-center cases receiving facility care). (Pediatric Melatonin Ingestions — United…)
  • Among pediatric melatonin-ingestion patients receiving facility care, 287 (1.0%) required intensive care (2012-2021; U.S. pediatric poison-center cases receiving facility care). (Pediatric Melatonin Ingestions — United…)
  • Most pediatric melatonin ingestions, 84.4%, were asymptomatic (2012-2021; U.S. children and adolescents aged 0-19). (Pediatric Melatonin Ingestions — United…)
  • More serious outcomes occurred in 4,555 cases, or 1.6% of all pediatric melatonin ingestions (2012-2021; U.S. children and adolescents aged 0-19). (Pediatric Melatonin Ingestions — United…)
  • CDC estimated 10,930 emergency-department visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestion among children aged 5 or younger during 2019-2022 (U.S. children aged 0-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • Melatonin accounted for 7.1% of all ED visits for unsupervised medication exposures among children aged 5 or younger in 2019-2022 (U.S. children aged 0-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • Children aged 3-5 accounted for 52.4% of estimated ED visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestion among children aged 5 or younger (2019-2022; U.S. children aged 3-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • Hospitalization did not result from 93.5% of estimated ED visits for unsupervised pediatric melatonin ingestion (2019-2022; U.S. children aged 0-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • Melatonin was the only medication involved in 90.2% of estimated ED visits for pediatric melatonin ingestion (2019-2022; U.S. children aged 0-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • A solid dosage form was accessed in 95.7% of ED visits for unsupervised pediatric melatonin ingestion (2019-2022; U.S. children aged 0-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • Gummies were the most commonly documented dosage form at 47.3% of pediatric melatonin ED visits, while an unspecified solid form was documented in 49.2% (2019-2022; U.S. children aged 0-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • Access to at least 10 units was documented in 35.8% of visits for solid melatonin ingestions, with a 95% confidence interval of 28.6%-43.0% (2019-2022; U.S. children aged 0-5 with solid melatonin ingestion). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • Adult or family formulations were documented in 47.7% of pediatric melatonin ED visits, while intended age was unspecified in 45.0% (2019-2022; U.S. children aged 0-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)
  • At least 32.8% of pediatric melatonin ED visits involved access from a bottle, while container type was not documented in 56.6% (2019-2022; U.S. children aged 0-5). (Notes from the Field: Emergency…)

Facility-care subset; disposition was not available for all reported ingestions.

Hospitalization is measured among facility-care patients, not all ingestions.

ICU percentage uses the facility-care denominator reported by CDC.

Symptoms recorded in poison-center reports; absence of reported symptoms is not proof of no exposure effect.

CDC defined serious outcomes as moderate/major effect or death; surveillance does not establish dose-response.

National estimate weighted from 295 NEISS-CADES cases; ED visits underestimate exposures not treated in ED.

Weighted surveillance estimate based on clinician diagnosis and ED documentation.

Age distribution among ED visits, not incidence per child.

ED disposition estimate; it does not describe poison-center cases managed outside hospitals.

Based on ED case narratives and may be affected by incomplete documentation.

Dosage form was coded from ED narratives; formulation was unspecified in many cases.

Categories reflect documentation and can overlap in interpretation because nearly half were unspecified solids.

Only documented unit counts qualify; missing narrative details may understate this share.

Formulation age labeling was often missing in ED narratives.

The first figure is a documented minimum; missing container data limits interpretation.

Table of contents