Blue-Light Therapy for Seasonal and Non-Seasonal Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. (October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Do, André; Li, Victor W.; Huang, Samantha; Michalak, Erin E.; Tam, Edwin M.; Chakrabarty, Trisha; Yatham, Lakshmi N.; Lam, Raymond W.
• Is Part Of: Canadian journal of psychiatry =. Volume 67:Number 10(2022)
• Page Start: 745
• Page End: 754
• Publication Date: 2022-10
• Subjects: blue-light therapy -- seasonal depression -- non-seasonal depression -- seasonal affective disorder -- major depressive disorder -- wavelength; Psychiatry -- Periodicals; Psychiatry -- Canada -- Periodicals; 616.8900971
• DOI: 10.1177/07067437221097903
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0706-7437

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of blue-light therapy in seasonal and non-seasonal major depressive disorder (MDD), by comparison to active and inactive control conditions. Methods: We searched Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo, and Clinicaltrials.gov through January 17, 2022, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using search terms for blue/blue-enhanced, light therapy, and depression/seasonal affective disorder. Two independent reviewers extracted data. The primary outcome was the difference in endpoint scores on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale - Seasonal Affective Disorder (SIGH-SAD) or the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with Atypical Depression Supplement (SIGH-ADS) between blue light and comparison conditions. Secondary outcomes were response (≥ 50% improvement from baseline to endpoint on a depression scale) and remission rates (endpoint score in the remission range). Results: Of 582 articles retrieved, we included nine RCTs ( n = 347 participants) assessing blue-light therapy. Seven studies had participants with seasonal MDD and two studies included participants with non-seasonal MDD. Four studies compared blue light to an inactive light condition (efficacy studies), and five studies compared it to an active condition (comparison studies). For the primary outcome, a meta-analysis with random-effects models found no evidence for the efficacy of blue-light conditions compared to inactive conditions (mean difference [MD] = 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.28 to 6.14, P = 0.20); however, blue-light also showed no differences compared to active conditions (MD = −0.11; 95% CI, −2.38 to 2.16, P = 0.93). There were no significant differences in response and remission rates between blue-light conditions and inactive or active light conditions. Blue-light therapy was overall well-tolerated. Conclusions: The efficacy of blue-light therapy in the treatment of seasonal and non-seasonal MDD remains unproven. Future trials should be of longer duration, include larger sample sizes, and attempt to better standardize the parameters of light therapy.