Search

Background: Sleep deprivation (SD) is an antidepressant intervention with multiple administration formats that has been investigated primarily with uncontrolled clinical trials and qualitative reviews of the literature. The validity and applicability of these findings to the treatment of bipolar depression (BPD) is uncertain. Methods: A PRISMA‐based systematic review of the literature and meta‐analysis were conducted to determine the efficacy of SD in the treatment of BPD and to identify moderator variables that influence response rate. Results: From a sample of 15 studies covering 384 patients, the overall, mean response rate to SD was 47.6% (CI 36.0%, 59.5%). This response rate compared post‐SD to pre‐SD depression scores, and not to a placebo control condition. Of several potential moderating variables examined, the use of adjunctive pharmacotherapy achieved statistical significance with response rates of 59.4% [CI 48.5, 69.5] for patients using adjunctive medication vs 27.4% [CI 17.8, 39.8] for patients not using adjunctive medication. Conclusions: This meta‐analysis of SD in the treatment of BPD found an overall, response rate of almost 50%, reinforcing earlier estimates of efficacy. The use of adjunctive pharmacotherapy had a statistically significant moderating effect on SD response suggesting that clinical practice should routinely pair these interventions. These findings provide a higher level of evidence supporting the use of SD, especially when used with medication, and should inform future management guidelines for the treatment of BPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Bipolar disorder (BD) is challenging to treat, and fewer treatments are available for depressive episodes compared to mania. Light therapy is an evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment for seasonal and nonseasonal major depression, but fewer studies have examined its efficacy for patients with BD. Hence, we reviewed the evidence for adjunctive light therapy as a treatment for bipolar depression.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of databases from inception to June 30, 2019, for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of light therapy in patients with BD (CRD42019128996). The primary outcome was change in clinician-rated depressive symptom score; secondary outcomes included clinical response, remission, acceptability, and treatment-emergent mood switches. We quantitatively pooled outcomes using meta-analysis with random-effects models.Results: We identified seven trials representing 259 patients with BD. Light therapy was associated with a significant improvement in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score (standardized mean difference = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.82, P = 0.03). There was also a significant difference in favor of light therapy for clinical response (odds ratio [OR] = 2.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 4.81; P = 0.024) but not for remission. There was no difference in affective switches between active light and control conditions (OR = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.38 to 4.44; P = 0.67). Study limitations included different light treatment parameters, small sample sizes, short treatment durations, and variable quality across trials.Conclusion: There is positive but nonconclusive evidence that adjunctive light therapy reduces symptoms of bipolar depression and increases clinical response. Light therapy is well tolerated with no increased risk of affective switch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To systematically review the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of the major chronotherapeutic treatments of bipolar disorders (BD)—bright light therapy (LT), dark therapy (DT), treatments utilizing sleep deprivation (SD), melatonergic agonists (MA), interpersonal social rhythm therapy (IPSRT), and cognitive behavioral therapy adapted for BD (CBTI‐BP)—and propose treatment recommendations based on a synthesis of the evidence. Methods: PRISMA‐based systematic review of the literature. Results: The acute antidepressant (AD) efficacy of LT was supported by several open‐label studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and one pseudorandomized controlled trial. SD showed rapid, acute AD response rates of 43.9%, 59.3%, and 59.4% in eight case series, 11 uncontrolled, studies, and one RCT, respectively. Adjunctive DT obtained significant, rapid anti‐manic results in one RCT and one controlled study. The seven studies on MA yielded very limited data on acute antidepressant activity, conflicting evidence of both antimanic and maintenance efficacy, and support from two case series of improved sleep in both acute and euthymic states. IPSRT monotherapy for bipolar II depression had acute response rates of 41%, 67%, and 67.4% in two open studies and one RCT, respectively; as adjunctive therapy for bipolar depression in one RCT, and efficacy in reducing relapse in two RCTs. Among euthymic BD subjects with insomnia, a single RCT found CBTI‐BP effective in delaying manic relapse and improving sleep. Chronotherapies were generally safe and well‐tolerated. Conclusions: The outcome literature on the adjunctive use of chronotherapeutic treatments for BP is variable, with evidence bases that differ in size, study quality, level of evidence, and non‐standardized treatment protocols. Evidence‐informed practice recommendations are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]