<b><i>Background:</i></b> Bright light therapy (BLT) has been used as a treatment for seasonal affective disorder (SAD) for over 30 years. This meta-analysis was aimed to assess the efficacy of BLT in the treatment of SAD in adults. <b><i>Method:</i></b> We performed a systematic literature search including randomized, single- or double-blind clinical trials investigating BLT (≥1,000 lx, light box or light visor) against dim light (≤400 lx) or sham/low-density negative ion generators as placebo. Only first-period data were used from crossover trials. The primary outcome was the post-treatment depression score measured by validated scales, and the secondary outcome was the rate of response to treatment. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 19 studies finally met our predefined inclusion criteria. BLT was superior over placebo with a standardized mean difference of –0.37 (95% CI: –0.63 to –0.12) for depression ratings (18 studies, 610 patients) and a risk ratio of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.08–1.85) for response to active treatment (16 studies, 559 patients). We found no evidence for a publication bias, but moderate heterogeneity of the studies and a moderate-to-high risk of bias. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> BLT can be regarded as an effective treatment for SAD, but the available evidence stems from methodologically heterogeneous studies with small-to-medium sample sizes, necessitating larger high-quality clinical trials.

BackgroundSeasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonally recurrent type of major depression that has detrimental effects on patients’ lives during winter. Little is known about how it affects patients during summer and about patients’ and physicians’ perspectives on preventive SAD treatment. The aim of our study was to explore how SAD patients experience summers, what type of preventive treatment patients implement, which preventive treatment methods, if any, physicians recommend, and what factors facilitate or hinder implementation/recommendation of SAD prevention.MethodsWe conducted 15 semi-structured interviews, ten with adult patients with a history of SAD and five with physicians. Transcripts were analyzed by two researchers using an inductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsOne group of patients was able to enjoy summer and ignore thoughts of the upcoming winter. The other group feared the impending depressive episode in winter, and this fear negatively impacted these patients’ well-being during the summer. Preventive treatment was a relevant issue for all patients, and all but one person implemented SAD prevention during summer. We identified six factors that influenced patient use of preventive treatment of SAD. Four factors occur on an individual level (knowledge about disease and preventive treatment options, experience with treatment in acute phase, acceptability of intervention, willingness to take responsibility for oneself), one on an interpersonal level (social and work environment), and one on a structural level (healthcare system). All psychiatrists recommended some kind of preventive intervention, most commonly, lifestyle changes. Four factors influenced psychiatrists in recommending prevention of SAD (patient expectations, disease history and stability, risk/benefit ratio, lack of evidence).ConclusionsSuccess in the implementation of SAD prevention does not solely depend on the willingness of the patients, but is also influenced by external factors. Raising awareness of SAD among general practitioners and low-level access to mental-health support could help patients find appropriate help sooner. To better guide the optimal treatment choice, comparative effectiveness research on treatments to prevent a new onset in patients with a history of SAD and clinical practice guidelines on SAD are needed.

Practically relevant quality criteria for readers to bear in mind when dealing with meta-analytic publications are summarized in a ten point checklist.

Background:Drug-induced liver injury is a common cause of liver damage and the most frequent reason for withdrawal of a drug in the United States. The symptoms of drug-induced liver damage are extremely diverse, with some patients remaining asymptomatic.Methods:This observational study is based on data of Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie, a multicenter drug surveillance program in German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland) recording severe drug reactions in psychiatric inpatients. Of 184234 psychiatric inpatients treated with antidepressants between 1993 and 2011 in 80 psychiatric hospitals, 149 cases of drug-induced liver injury (0.08%) were reported.Results:The study revealed that incidence rates of drug-induced liver injury were highest during treatment with mianserine (0.36%), agomelatine (0.33%), and clomipramine (0.23%). The lowest probability of drug-induced liver injury occurred during treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ([0.03%), especially escitalopram [0.01%], citalopram [0.02%], and fluoxetine [0.02%]). The most common clinical symptoms were nausea, fatigue, loss of appetite, and abdominal pain. In contrast to previous findings, the dosage at the timepoint when DILI occurred was higher in 7 of 9 substances than the median overall dosage. Regarding liver enzymes, duloxetine and clomipramine were associated with increased glutamat-pyruvat-transaminase and glutamat-oxalat-transaminase values, while mirtazapine hardly increased enzyme values. By contrast, duloxetine performed best in terms of gamma-glutamyl-transferase values, and trimipramine, clomipramine, and venlafaxine performed worst.Conclusions:Our findings suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are less likely than the other antidepressants, examined in this study, to precipitate drug-induced liver injury, especially in patients with preknown liver dysfunction.