RESUMO
Importance: Seasonal humor disorders are prone to have a link with daylight exposure. However, the effect of external light on nonseasonal disorders remains unclear. Evidence is lacking for the validity of bright light therapy (BLT) as an adjunctive treatment for these patients. Objective: To assess BLT effectiveness as an adjunctive treatment for nonseasonal depressive disorders. Data Sources: In March 2024, a comprehensive search was performed of publications in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating BLT effects in patients with nonseasonal depression. Study Selection: RCTs published since 2000 were eligible. Comparisons between BLT and dim red light or antidepressant monotherapy alone were considered for inclusion. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Using the systematic review approach on RCTs published from January 1, 2000, through March 25, 2024, differences between patients treated with and without BLT were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method; heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Remission of symptoms, response to treatment rates, and depression scales were assessed. Results: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 unique trials with data from 858 patients (649 female [75.6%]), statistically significant better remission and response rates were found in the BLT group (remission: 40.7% vs 23.5%; odds ratio [OR], 2.42; 95% CI, 1.50-3.91; P <.001; I2 = 21%; response: 60.4% vs 38.6%; OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.46-3.75; P <.001; I2 = 41%). With BLT, subgroup analysis based on follow-up times also showed better remission (<4 weeks: 27.4% vs 9.2%; OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.45-8.88; P = .005; I2 = 0% and >4 weeks: 46.6% vs 29.1%; OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.19-4.00; P = .01; I2 = 47%) and response (<4 weeks: 55.6% vs 27.4%; OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.81-7.33; P <.001; I2 = 35% and >4 weeks: 63.0% vs 44.9%; OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.01-3.17; P = .04; I2 = 32%) rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that BLT was an effective adjunctive treatment for nonseasonal depressive disorders. Additionally, results suggest that BLT may improve the response time to the initial treatment.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients who have undergone catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) may experience recurrence of this condition. The efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) in preventing AF recurrence compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is not established. This meta-analysis aimed to establish the best therapeutic choice for preventing AF recurrence after catheter ablation. METHOD: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the use of S/V with ACEI/ARB in patients who underwent catheter ablation. Results are presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic, and outcomes are expressed as relative risk (RR). R software version 4.2.3 was used for the analysis. RESULTS: Three RCTs and one cohort study, comprising 642 patients with 319 patients in the S/V group and 323 in the control group, were included. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 36 months, with mean ages ranging from 58.9 to 65.8 years. A significant reduction in persistent AF occurrence was demonstrated favoring the S/V group (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.70]; pâ¯= 0.000004; I2: 80%) over the ACEI/ARB group. There was no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction with S/V use (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: [-0.12, 2.60]; pâ¯= 0.076; I2: 0%) compared with ACEI/ARB. The analysis also showed a significant reduction in left atrial volume index (MD: -5.33; 95% CI: [-8.76, -1.90]; pâ¯= 0.002; I2: 57%) in the S/V group compared with the ACEI/ARB group. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of S/V in reducing the incidence of AF in patients undergoing catheter ablation compared with the use of ACEI/ARB. However, more RCTs are needed for a comprehensive evaluation of its efficacy in reducing AF recurrence after catheter ablation in clinical practice.