Bright light therapy is an evidence-based treatment for seasonal depression, but there is limited evidence for its efficacy in nonseasonal major depressive disorder (MDD). OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of light treatment, in monotherapy and in combination with fluoxetine hydrochloride, compared with a sham-placebo condition in adults with nonseasonal MDD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, double-blind, placebo-and sham-controlled, 8-week trial in adults (aged 19-60 years) with MDD of at least moderate severity in outpatient psychiatry clinics in academic medical centers. Data were collected from October 7, 2009, to March 11, 2014. Analysis was based on modified intent to treat (randomized patients with Ն1 follow-up rating). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to (1) light monotherapy (active 10 000-lux fluorescent white light box for 30 min/d in the early morning plus placebo pill); (2) antidepressant monotherapy (inactive negative ion generator for 30 min/d plus fluoxetine hydrochloride, 20 mg/d); (3) combination light and antidepressant; or (4) placebo (inactive negative ion generator plus placebo pill). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Change score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to the 8-week end point. Secondary outcomes included response (Ն50% reduction in MADRS score) and remission (MADRS score Յ10 at end point). RESULTS A total of 122 patients were randomized (light monotherapy, 32; fluoxetine monotherapy, 31; combination therapy, 29; placebo, 30). The mean (SD) changes in MADRS score for the light, fluoxetine, combination, and placebo groups were 13.4 (7.5), 8.8 (9.9), 16.9 (9.2), and 6.5 (9.6), respectively. The combination (effect size [d] = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.64) and light monotherapy (d = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.31) were significantly superior to placebo in the MADRS change score, but fluoxetine monotherapy (d = 0.24; 95% CI, −0.27 to 0.74) was not superior to placebo. For the respective placebo, fluoxetine, light, and combination groups at the end point, response was achieved by 10 (33.3%), 9 (29.0%), 16 (50.0%), and 22 (75.9%) and remission was achieved by 9 (30.0%), 6 (19.4%), 14 (43.8%), and 17 (58.6%). Combination therapy was superior to placebo in MADRS response (β = 1.70; df = 1; P = .005) and remission (β = 1.33; df = 1; P = .02), with numbers needed to treat of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.6 to 5.8) and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.0 to 29.9), respectively. All treatments were generally well tolerated, with few significant differences in treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Bright light treatment, both as monotherapy and in combination with fluoxetine, was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of adults with nonseasonal MDD. The combination treatment had the most consistent effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00958204

Light treatment showed earlier response onset and lower rate of some adverse events relative to fluoxetine, but there were no other significant differences in outcome between light therapy and antidepressant medication. Although limited by lack of a double-placebo condition, this study supports the effectiveness and tolerability of both treatments for seasonal affective disorder and suggests that other clinical factors, including patient preference, should guide selection of first-line treatment.

Combined treatment with escitalopram and telephone-administered CBT significantly improved some self-reported work functioning outcomes, but not symptom-based outcomes, compared with escitalopram alone.

BackgroundRecent research has emphasized that the human circadian rhythm system is differentially sensitive to short wavelength light. Light treatment devices using efficient light-emitting diodes (LEDs) whose output is relatively concentrated in short wavelengths may enable a more convenient effective therapy for Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD).MethodsThe efficacy of a LED light therapy device in the treatment of SAD was tested in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial. Participants aged 18 to 65 with SAD (DSM-IV major depression with seasonal pattern) were seen at Baseline and Randomization visits separated by 1 week, and after 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks of treatment. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (SIGH-SAD) were obtained at each visit. Participants with SIGH-SAD of 20 or greater at Baseline and Randomization visits were randomized to active or control treatment: exposure to the Litebook LED treatment device (The Litebook Company Ltd., Alberta, Canada) which delivers 1,350 lux white light (with spectral emission peaks at 464 nm and 564 nm) at a distance of 20 inches or to an inactivated negative ion generator at a distance of 20 inches, for 30 minutes a day upon awakening and prior to 8 A.M.ResultsOf the 26 participants randomized, 23 completed the trial. Mean group SIGH-SAD scores did not differ significantly at randomization. At trial end, the proportions of participants in remission (SIGH-SAD less than 9) were significantly greater (Fisher's exact test), and SIGH-SAD scores, as percent individual score at randomization, were significantly lower (t-test), with active treatment than with control, both in an intent-to-treat analysis and an observed cases analysis. A longitudinal repeated measures ANOVA analysis of SIGH-SAD scores also indicated a significant interaction of time and treatment, showing superiority of the Litebook over the placebo condition.ConclusionThe results of this pilot study support the hypothesis that light therapy with the Litebook is an effective treatment for SAD.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT00139997

Background. Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with significant impairment in occupational functioning. This study sought to determine which depressive symptoms and medication side effects were perceived by patients with MDD to have the greatest interference on work functioning. Methods. 164 consecutive patients with MDD by DSM-IV criteria completed a standard assessment that included a self-rated questionnaire about the degree to which symptoms and side effects interfered with work functioning. Results. The symptoms perceived by patients as interfering most with work functioning were fatigue and low energy, insomnia, concentration and memory problems, anxiety, and irritability. The medication side effects rated as interfering most with work functioning were daytime sedation, insomnia, headache, and agitation/anxiety. There were no differences between men and women in symptoms or side effects that were perceived as interfering with work functioning. Limitations. This was a cross-sectional study; only subjective assessments of work functioning were obtained; the fact that patients were using varied medications acts as a potential confound. Conclusions. Specific depressive symptoms and medication side effects were perceived by patients as interfering more with occupational functioning than others. These factors should be considered in treatment selection (e.g., in the choice of antidepressant) in working patients with MDD.