Light therapy: is it safe for the eyes?

Brouwer, Annelies; Nguyen, Hoang; Snoek, Frank J.; Raalte, Daniël H. van; Beekman, Aartjan; Moll, Annette C.; Bremmer, Marijke A.

doi:10.1111/acps.12785

Cited by 30 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We do not expect that the study will expose participants to any serious hazard as their usual clinical management is maintained and the side-effect profile of bright light is low 34 77. All AEs will be recorded until the end of the follow-up period, and regulatory rules for reporting of SAEs and SARs will be adhered to.…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic LED-light versus static LED-light for depressed inpatients: study protocol for a randomised clinical study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRetrospective studies conducted in psychiatric inpatient wards have shown a relation between the intensity of daylight in patient rooms and the length of stay, pointing to an antidepressant effect of ambient lighting conditions. Light therapy has shown a promising antidepressant effect when administered from a light box. The emergence of light-emitting diode (LED) technology has made it possible to build luminaires into rooms and to dynamically mimic the spectral and temporal distribution of daylight. The objective of this study is to investigate the antidepressant efficacy of a newly developed dynamic LED-lighting system installed in an inpatient ward.Methods and analysisIn all, 150 inpatients with a major depressive episode, as part of either a major depressive disorder or as part of a bipolar disorder, will be included. The design is a two-arm 1:1 randomised study with a dynamic LED-lighting arm and a static LED-lighting arm, both as add-on to usual treatment in an inpatient psychiatric ward. The primary outcome is the baseline adjusted score on the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 3. The secondary outcomes are the mean score on the Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale at week 3, the mean score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 3 and the mean score on the World Health Organisation Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) at week 3. The spectral distribution of daylight and LED-light, with a specific focus on light mediated through the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, will be measured. Use of light luminaires will be logged. Assessors of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores and data analysts will be blinded for treatment allocation. The study was initiated in May 2019 and will end in December 2021.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are expected. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, disseminated electronically and in print and presented at symposia.Trial registration numberNCT03821506; Pre-results.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic LED-light versus static LED-light for depressed inpatients: study protocol for a randomised clinical study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though the optimal wavelength to stimulate ipRGCs (∼480 nm) is considerably greater than violet and ultraviolet wavelengths where damage is more certain, it is a plausible concern [ 199 ]. However, there is no evidence in the published literature of such damage from the types of therapy described here [ 200 ]. Some companies who manufacture blue-wavelength light-box devices have had their products independently evaluated for blue-light retinal hazard and have reported the exposure hazard to be minimal at the distance, intensity and duration of light emitted for those devices.…”

Section: Current Limitations To Using Phototherapy For Mtbimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another consideration is that the amount of blue-wavelength light emitted by most light-box devices is considerably less than that obtained by an equal duration of exposure to midday outdoor sunlight. Additionally, as noted with photophobia and PTH, many individuals do report headaches and other somatic symptoms with the use of light boxes [ 200 ]. Although there is no compelling evidence at this time that standard light therapy devices pose a significant optical hazard when used according to manufacturer’s instructions, further research into the long-term safety and side effects of light exposure treatment is warranted.…”

Section: Current Limitations To Using Phototherapy For Mtbimentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential for the development of light therapies in mild traumatic brain injury

Raikes

Killgore

2018

Concussion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light affects almost all aspects of human physiological functioning, including circadian rhythms, sleep–wake regulation, alertness, cognition and mood. We review the existing relevant literature on the effects of various wavelengths of light on these major domains, particularly as they pertain to recovery from mild traumatic brain injuries. Evidence suggests that light, particularly in the blue wavelengths, has powerful alerting, cognitive and circadian phase shifting properties that could be useful for treatment. Other wavelengths, such as red and green may also have important effects that, if targeted appropriately, might also be useful for facilitating recovery. Despite the known effects of light, more research is needed. We recommend a personalized medicine approach to the use of light therapy as an adjunctive treatment for patients recovering from mild traumatic brain injury.

show abstract

“…Light therapy has traditionally been based on lightboxes used in the morning for 30-60 min [8]. Light therapy seems to have relatively few adverse effects [9], and with a good ocular safety [10], but it probably has to be continued to maintain the antidepressant effect [11]. The recent discovery of the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGC) [12], with peak sensitivity around 480 nm, and the development of the light-emitting diode (LED) technology have made it clinically relevant and possible to tailor specific light intensities and spectral distributions throughout the 24-h day.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic LED light versus static LED light for depressed inpatients: results from a randomized feasibility trial

Volf

Aggestrup

Svendsen

et al. 2020

Pilot Feasibility Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Retrospective studies conducted in psychiatric wards have indicated a shorter duration of stay for depressed inpatients in bright compared to dim daylight-exposed rooms, pointing to a possible antidepressant effect of daylight conditions. Dynamic LED lighting, aiming to mimic daylight conditions, are currently been installed in several hospitals, but their feasibility is poorly investigated. Methods: To investigate the feasibility of these systems, we developed and installed a LED-lighting system in four rooms in a psychiatric inpatient ward. The system could function statically or dynamically regarding light intensity and colour temperature. The system consisted of (A) a large LED luminaire built into the window jamb mimicking sunlight reflections, (B) two LED light luminaires in the ceiling and (C) a LED reading luminaire. In the static mode, the systems provided constant light from A and B. In the dynamic mode, the system changed light intensity and colour temperature using A, B and C. Patients with unipolar or bipolar depression were randomised to dynamic or static LED lighting for 4 weeks, in addition to standard treatment. Primary outcome was the rate of patients discontinuing the trial due to discomfort from the lighting condition. Secondary outcomes were recruitment and dropout rates, visual comfort, depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation. Results: No participants discontinued due to discomfort from the LED lighting. Recruitment rate was 39.8%, dropout from treatment rates were 56.3% in the dynamic group and 33.3% in the static group. 78.1% in the dynamic group were satisfied with the lighting compared with 71.8% in the static group. Discomfort from the light (glare) was reported by 11.5% in the dynamic group compared to 5.1% in the static group. Endpoint suicidal scores were 16.8 (10.4) in the dynamic and 16.3 (14.9) in the static group. The lighting system was 100% functional. The light sensor system proved unstable. Conclusion: Dropout from treatment was high primarily due to early discharge and with a lack of endpoint assessments. The feasibility study has influenced an upcoming large-scale dynamic lighting efficacy trial where we will use a shorter study period of 3 weeks and with more emphasis on endpoint assessments. The lighting was well tolerated in both groups, but some found intensity too low in the evening. Thus, we will use higher intensity blue-enriched light in the morning and higher intensity amber (blue-depleted) light in the evening in the upcoming study. The light sensor system needs to be improved

show abstract

Light therapy: is it safe for the eyes?

Cited by 30 publications

References 92 publications

Dynamic LED-light versus static LED-light for depressed inpatients: study protocol for a randomised clinical study

Dynamic LED-light versus static LED-light for depressed inpatients: study protocol for a randomised clinical study

Potential for the development of light therapies in mild traumatic brain injury

Dynamic LED light versus static LED light for depressed inpatients: results from a randomized feasibility trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About