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

Methods: Using the question-answer format, we conducted a systematic literature search focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Evidence was graded using CANMAT-defined criteria for level of evidence. Recommendations for lines of treatment were based on the quality of evidence and clinical expert consensus. ''Complementary and Alternative Medicine Treatments'' is the fifth of six sections of the 2016 guidelines. Results: Evidence-informed responses were developed for 12 questions for 2 broad categories of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions: 1) physical and meditative treatments (light therapy, sleep deprivation, exercise, yoga, and acupuncture) and 2) natural health products (St. John's wort, omega-3 fatty acids; S-adenosyl-L-methionine [SAM-e], dehydroepiandrosterone, folate, Crocus sativus, and others). Recommendations were based on available data on efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Conclusions: For MDD of mild to moderate severity, exercise, light therapy, St. John's wort, omega-3 fatty acids, SAM-e, and yoga are recommended as first-or second-line treatments. Adjunctive exercise and adjunctive St. John's wort are second-line recommendations for moderate to severe MDD. Other physical treatments and natural health products have less evidence

Seventy-five patients meeting international diagnostic criteria for narcolepsy enrolled in a 6-week, three-period, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled trial. Patients received placebo, modafinil 200 mg, or modafinil 400 mg in divided doses (morning and noon). Evaluations occurred at baseline and at the end of each 2-week period. Compared with placebo, modafinil 200 and 400 mg significantly increased the mean sleep latency on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test by 40% and 54%, with no significant difference between the two doses. Modafinil, 200 and 400 mg, also reduced the combined number of daytime sleep episodes and periods of severe sleepiness noted in sleep logs. The likelihood of falling asleep as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale was equally reduced by both modafinil dose levels. There were no effects on nocturnal sleep initiation, maintenance, or architecture, nor were there any effects on sleep apnea or periodic leg movements. Neither dose interfered with the patients' ability to nap voluntarily during the day nor with their quantity or quality of nocturnal sleep. Modafinil produced no changes in blood pressure or heart rate in either normotensive or hypertensive patients. The only significant adverse effects were seen at the 400-mg dose, which was associated with more nausea and more nervousness than either placebo or the 200-mg dose. As little as a 200-mg daily dose of modafinil is therefore an effective and well-tolerated treatment of excessive daytime somnolence in narcoleptic persons.

For MDD of mild to moderate severity, exercise, light therapy, St. John's wort, omega-3 fatty acids, SAM-e, and yoga are recommended as first- or second-line treatments. Adjunctive exercise and adjunctive St. John's wort are second-line recommendations for moderate to severe MDD. Other physical treatments and natural health products have less evidence but may be considered as third-line treatments. CAM treatments are generally well tolerated. Caveats include methodological limitations of studies and paucity of data on long-term outcomes and drug interactions.