Dataset Information

Adolescent depression: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter parallel group trial of Bright Light Therapy in a naturalistic inpatient setting (DeLight).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Depressive disorders are among the most prominent health problems in youth. Even with the best available pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, remission rates are low. Without early treatment, depression in youth is associated with a high risk of symptom progression, chronicity, co-morbidity, and suicidal behavior. Thus, adolescent depression is a prime candidate for innovation in treatment. In depressive adults, meta-analytic evidence has proven that bright light therapy (BLT) is a potent low-threshold intervention, promising due to easy application, low side effects, and optimized compliance. In adolescents, studies with small samples show promising effects. This randomized controlled trial will examine the effectiveness of BLT in youth inpatients.

Methods/design

In this randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter parallel group trial, morning BLT is applied for four weeks in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) for depressed youth inpatients (daily morning exposure to bright light via light-emitting glasses, 10,000 lx, for 30 min) and will be compared to a control condition (placebo light treatment, red light, identical light glasses). The primary objective is to assess whether BLT reduces symptoms of depression in youth with greater effect compared to placebo light therapy. Secondary objectives are to examine the impact of BLT on responder status, application of antidepressant medication, and further depression-related symptoms (sleep, activity, quality of life, satisfaction with health, general psychopathology, alertness, and circadian function). N?=?224 patients will be recruited in a naturalistic inpatient setting. A follow-up will be carried out after three and six months.

Discussion

The study aims to discuss and evaluate BLT as an additive method supporting standardized clinical procedures dealing with severe to moderate depressive symptoms in youth.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00013188 . Registered on November 30, 2017.

SUBMITTER: Holtmann M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6194631 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adolescent depression: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter parallel group trial of Bright Light Therapy in a naturalistic inpatient setting (DeLight).

Holtmann Martin M Mokros Laura L Kirschbaum-Lesch Inken I Kölch Michael M Plener Paul L PL Ruckes Christian C Schulte-Markwort Michael M Legenbauer Tanja T

Trials 20181019 1

<h4>Background</h4>Depressive disorders are among the most prominent health problems in youth. Even with the best available pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, remission rates are low. Without early treatment, depression in youth is associated with a high risk of symptom progression, chronicity, co-morbidity, and suicidal behavior. Thus, adolescent depression is a prime candidate for innovation in treatment. In depressive adults, meta-analytic evidence has proven that bright ligh ...[more]

PMID: 30340625

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesApproximately 11%-13% of pregnant women suffer from depression. Bright light therapy (BLT) is a promising treatment, combining direct availability, sufficient efficacy, low costs and high safety for both mother and child. Here, we examined the effects of BLT on depression during pregnancy.DesignRandomised, double-blind controlled trial.SettingPrimary and secondary care in The Netherlands, from November 2016 to March 2019.Participants67 pregnant women (12-32 weeks gestational age) with a DSM-5 diagnosis of depressive disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).InterventionsParticipants were randomly allocated to treatment with either BLT (9000 lux, 5000 K) or dim red light therapy (DRLT, 100 lux, 2700 K), which is considered placebo. For 6 weeks, both groups were treated daily at home for 30 min on awakening. Follow-up took place weekly during the intervention, after 6 weeks of therapy, 3 and 10 weeks after treatment and 2 months postpartum.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDepressive symptoms were measured primarily with the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Scale-Seasonal Affective Disorder. Secondary measures were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Changes in rating scale scores of these questionnaires over time were analysed using generalised linear mixed models.ResultsMedian depression scores decreased by 40.6%-53.1% in the BLT group and by 50.9%-66.7% in the DRLT group. We found no statistically significant difference in symptom change scores between BLT and DRLT. Sensitivity and post-hoc analyses did not change our findings.ConclusionsDepressive symptoms of pregnant women with depression improved in both treatment arms. More research is necessary to determine whether these responses represent true treatment effects, non-specific treatment responses, placebo effects or a combination hereof.Trial registration numberNTR5476.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the extended efficacy, safety, and tolerability of escitalopram relative to placebo in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD).MethodsAdolescents (12-17 years) who completed an 8-week randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled, lead-in study of escitalopram 10-20 mg versus placebo could enroll in a 16-24-week, multisite extension trial; patients maintained the same lead-in randomization (escitalopram or placebo) and dosage (escitalopram 10 or 20 mg/day, or placebo) during the extension. The primary efficacy was Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) change from the lead-in study baseline to treatment week 24 (8-week lead-in study plus 16-week extension); the secondary efficacy was Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score at week 24. All efficacy analyses used the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach; sensitivity analyses used observed cases (OC) and mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Safety was evaluated via adverse event (AE) reports and the clinician-rated Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS).ResultsFollowing lead-in, 165 patients enrolled in the double-blind extension (82 placebo; 83 escitalopram); 40 (48.8%) placebo and 37 (44.6%) escitalopram patients completed treatment. CDRS-R total score improvement was significantly greater for escitalopram than for placebo (p=0.005, LOCF; p=0.014; MMRM). Response rates (CDRS-R ≥ 40% reduction from baseline [adjusted and unadjusted] and CGI-I ≤ 2) were significantly higher for escitalopram than for placebo (LOCF); remission rates (CDRS-R ≤ 28) were 50.6% for escitalopram and 35.7% for placebo (p=0.002). OC analyses were not significantly different between groups. The most frequent escitalopram AEs (≥ 5% and more frequent than placebo) were headache, nausea, insomnia, vomiting, influenza-like symptoms, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection. Most AEs were mild/moderate and not related to the study drug. AEs suggestive of self-harm occurred in 5.7% and 7.1% of placebo and escitalopram patients. Occurrence of suicidal behavior and/or suicidal ideation assessed by C-SSRS was 10.9% (14/128) for placebo and 14.5% (19/131) for escitalopram.ConclusionsExtended use of escitalopram was generally safe and resulted in modest improvement in efficacy in adolescents with MDD.

Project description:A disturbed circadian rhythm seems to be a causal factor in the occurrence of depressive disorders in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). The circadian rhythm can be restored with light. Therefore, Bright Light Therapy (BLT) might be a new treatment option for depression in PD patients.In this double-blind controlled trial, 84 subjects with idiopathic PD are randomized to either BLT or a control light condition. The BLT condition emits white light with an intensity of 10,000 Lux, while the control device emits dim white light of 200 Lux, which is presumed to be too low to influence the circadian rhythm. Subjects receive 30 min of home treatment twice daily for three months. Timing of treatment is based on the individual chronotype. After finishing treatment, subjects enter a follow-up period of six months. The primary outcome of the study is the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes are alternative depression measures, objective and subjective sleep measures, and salivary melatonin and cortisol concentrations. For exploratory purposes, we also assess the effects on motor symptoms, global cognitive function, comorbid psychiatric disorders, quality of life and caregiver burden. Data will be analyzed using a linear mixed models analysis.Performing a placebo-controlled trial on the effects of BLT in PD patients is challenging, as the appearance of the light may provide clues on the treatment condition. Moreover, fixed treatment times lead to an improved sleep-wake rhythm, which also influences the circadian system. With our study design, we do not compare BLT to placebo treatment, i.e. an ineffective control treatment. Rather, we compare structuring of the sleep-wake cycle in both conditions with additional BLT in the experimental condition, and additional dim light in the control condition. Participants are not informed about the exact details of the two light devices and the expected therapeutic effect, and expectancies are rated prior to the start of treatment. Ideally, the design of a future study on BLT should include two extra treatment arms where BLT and control light are administered at random times.This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on May 17th 2012 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01604876 ).

Project description:In the last forty years therapy outcomes for depression have remained the same with approximately 50% of patients responding to treatments. Advances are urgently required. We hypothesised that a recent treatment, metacognitive therapy (MCT), might be more effective, by targeting mental control processes that directly contribute to depression. We assessed the clinical efficacy of MCT compared to current best psychotherapy practice, CBT, in adults with major depressive disorder. A parallel randomized single-blind trial was conducted in a primary care outpatient setting. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN82799488. In total 174 adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder were eligible and consented to take part. 85 were randomly allocated to MCT and 89 to CBT. Randomisation was performed independently following pre-treatment assessment and was stratified for severity of depression (low?<?20 vs high?>?=20) on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and on sex (male/female). Assessors and trial statisticians were blind to treatment allocation. Each treatment arm consisted of up to 24 sessions of up to 60?minutes each, delivered by trained clinical psychologists. The co-primary outcome measures were assessor rated symptom severity on the HDRS and self-reported symptom severity on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) at post treatment. Secondary outcomes were scores six months post treatment on these measures and a range of symptom and mechanism variables. A key trial design feature was that each treatment was implemented to maximize individual patient benefit; hence time under therapy and number of sessions delivered could vary. Treated groups in the trial were very similar on most baseline characteristics. Data were analyzed on the basis of intention to treat (ITT). No differences were found on the HDRS at post treatment or follow-up (-0.95 [-2.88 to 0.98], p?=?0.336; and -1.61 [-3.65 to 0.43], p?=?0.122), but floor effects on this outcome were high. However, a significant difference favouring MCT was found on the BDI-II at post treatment (-5.49 [95% CI -8.90 to -2.08], p?=?0.002), which was maintained at six-month follow-up (-4.64 [-8.21 to -1.06], p?=?0.011). Following MCT 74% of patients compared with 52% in CBT met formal criteria for recovery on the BDI-II at post treatment (odds-ratio=2.42 [1.20 to 4.92], p?=?0.014). At follow-up the proportions were 74% compared to 56% recovery (odds-ratio=2.19 [1.05 to 4.54], p?=?0.036). Significant differences favouring MCT, also maintained over time, were observed for most secondary outcomes. The results were robust against controlling for time under therapy and when outcomes were assessed at a common 90 day mid-term time-point. Limitations of the study include the use of only two therapists where one treated 69% of patients, possible allegiance effects as the study was conducted in an established CBT clinic and the chief investigator is the originator of MCT and group differences in time under therapy. Never the less evidence from this study suggests that MCT had considerable beneficial effects in treating depression that may exceed CBT.

Dataset Information

Adolescent depression: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter parallel group trial of Bright Light Therapy in a naturalistic inpatient setting (DeLight).

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Adolescent depression: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter parallel group trial of Bright Light Therapy in a naturalistic inpatient setting (DeLight).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets