Adjunctive bright light in non-seasonal major depression

OBJECTIVE: Bright light treatment is an established treatment for Seasonal Affective Disorder, but in non-seasonal depression research results have been contrasting. METHOD: This study was designed as a 5-week controlled, double-blind, parallel trial in out-patients with a diagnosis (DSM-IV) of non-seasonal major depression, randomized to either active treatment (white light, 10 000 lux, 1 h daily) or placebo treatment (red light, 50 lux, 30 min daily) and concomitant treatment with sertraline in both groups. RESULTS: One hundred and two patients were included in the study. Analyses showed that on all used scales the reduction in depression scores was larger in the bright light group than in the dim light group, and this reached statistical significance on all observer rating scales and on the SCL-90R self-assessment scale. The HAM-D6 was the most sensitive scale to measure improvement at endpoint. CONCLUSION: The study results support the use of bright light as an adjunct treatment to antidepressants in non-seasonal depression.     

Adjunctive bright light in non-seasonal major depression: results from patient-reported symptom and well-being scales

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we tested the efficacy of bright light therapy as an adjunct to antidepressant treatment (sertraline) in patients with non-seasonal major depression. METHOD: In a randomized double-blind controlled trial, 102 patients were treated for 5 weeks with either white bright light (10.000 lx, 1 h/day) or red dim light (50 lx, 30 min/day). All patients received sertraline in a dosage of 50 mg daily. The self-assessment scales used were the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), the Psychological General Well-Being Scale (PGWB) and the Symptom Check List (SCL-90R). RESULTS: On all three questionnaires the score differences between baseline and endpoint were greatest in the bright light group. On the SCL-90R, the difference reached statistical significance. Results and effect sizes are compared with results from Danish national population studies applying PGWB and SCL-90R. CONCLUSION: The results advocate the use of bright light as an adjunct treatment of non-seasonal depression.     

Phototherapy in nonseasonal depression

Previous reports have shown that bright light exposure may benefit patients with seasonal depression. In the present study, the possible therapeutic effect of bright light in nonseasonal major depressive disorder was examined. Forty-two depressed patients not receiving additional antidepressant medication were exposed to bright white light of 2500 lux or dim red light of 50 lux over one week for two hr daily in the morning. The change in depressive symptoms was assessed by rating scales (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, CGI) and by self-rating scales (Depression Scale, Complaint List, Visual Analogue Scale). Consistent for all ratings, the decrease in depressive symptoms after bright white light was only slight and not different from dim red-light exposure. Contrary to the findings in seasonal affective disorder, phototherapy administered over one week for two hr daily is not effective in nonseasonal major depressive disorder.     

Effect of bright white light on non-seasonal depressive disorder

In previous research, the therapeutic effect of bright white light for so so-called seasonal affective disorder was clearly confirmed. The aim of the present study was to evaluate possible beneficial effects of bright white light in non-seasonal depression. 30 patients fulfilling RDC-criteria for major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to a 7 day exposure from 7.20 to 9.20 a.m. The degree of illness was ascertained both objectively with observer rating scales (Hamilton Depression Scale, AMDP-system) and through self-rating scales (Complaint List and Depression Scale by von Zerssen). No difference was noted between bright light and dim light though a significant reduction of depressive symptomatology was observed for all patients during the treatment. These results were consistent for both observer rating and self-rating. In conclusion, bright white light has no superior effect as compared to dim light exposure in non-seasonal depression.     

The influence of phototherapy on serotonin and melatonin in non-seasonal depression

Circadian profiles of melatonin in serum and serotonin in blood were assessed before and after 7 days of artificial light treatment in 30 patients with non-seasonal depression and 12 healthy subjects. Patients and volunteers were allocated at random to either dim (50 lux) or bright light (2,500 lux) for 2 hours daily. The study has not been completed yet. Preliminary findings are presented here. Light treatment modifies marginally the circadian melatonin profiles of depressed patients and healthy subjects; however, it augments blood serotonin throughout the day. This increase is seen in all patients and healthy subjects after bright as well as dim light. These results suggest that the influence of light is more pronounced on serotonin than melatonin metabolism.     

Ultraviolet versus non-ultraviolet light therapy for seasonal affective disorder

Although light therapy has been shown to be effective in the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD), little research has been done to determine which light wavelengths affect treatment outcome. In this triple crossover study the authors compared 1 week of light therapy in which bright (2500 lux), full-spectrum fluorescent light, with and without blockade of the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, was used with a dim (500 lux) light control in 11 SAD patients. The dim light condition had no significant antidepressant effects as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and an atypical depressive symptom (ATYP) score. The UV-light condition significantly reduced HAM-D, BDI, and ATYP scores, whereas the UV-blocked condition significantly reduced only the ATYP score. These results suggest that the UV-spectrum in light therapy may have a differential effect on typical and atypical symptoms in SAD.     

Sertraline as monotherapy in the treatment of psychotic and nonpsychotic depression

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are effective when used alone in the treatment of unipolar depression with psychotic features. The purpose of the present study was to examine the response to sertraline for patients with and without psychotic features using standard criteria such as recovery and remission. METHOD: An 8-week open-label trial of sertraline in depressed inpatients was conducted. Twenty-five subjects had DSM-IV major depressive disorder with psychotic features, and 25 had DSM-IV major depressive disorder without psychotic features. After a 1-week open washout, all subjects were rated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) at baseline. The HAM-D was administered weekly, and the BPRS was administered again only at the end of the 8-week trial. Medication dosage was started at 50 mg/day, increased to 100 mg/day after 1 week, and then increased up to 200 mg/day if subjects had not remitted. RESULTS: Depressed patients without psychosis responded significantly better than did depressed patients with psychosis using the criteria of remission (HAM-D score - 7; p =.001), response (HAM-D score - 50% of baseline score; p =.011), referral for electroconvulsive therapy (HAM-D score >/= 15; p =.011), or change in HAM-D scores (p =.016). Baseline HAM-D score and psychosis independently predicted response, whereas baseline BPRS scores did not, regardless of whether psychotic status was entered into the analyses. CONCLUSION: Psychotic depression responds more poorly than depression without psychosis to sertraline alone. Psychosis was a predictor of response independent of degree of depression and general psychopathology. Limitations due to an open-label design are discussed, as are differences between this study and others using SSRIs for psychotic depression.     

Validation of the Bech–Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale and the Hamilton Depression Scale in patients with major depression; is the total score a valid measure of illness severity?

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of antidepressant drug efficacy requires adequate rating scales for measuring the severity of depression. However, to measure the illness severity by such a total score, the scale needs to fulfil criteria of unidimensionality. On this background, we aimed at comparing the unidimensionality of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (MES) and the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D(17)). METHOD: A total of 1629 patients aged between 18 and 65 years with a major depressive episode were treated openly with sertraline at a fixed oral dose of 50 mg daily during 4 weeks. The HAM-D(17) and the MES were applied at baseline and at weeks 2 and 4. Unidimensionality was tested with Mokken and Rasch analysis. RESULTS: Unidimensionality of the HAM-D(17) could not be confirmed. However, the 6-item Hamilton Depression Subscale (HAM-D(6)), was accepted by the Rasch analysis both at baseline and after 2 and 4 weeks of therapy. For the MES (as well as for the HAM-D(6)), a Loevinger coefficient of homogeneity above 0.40 (suggesting acceptance) was found at week 4. CONCLUSION: The HAM-D(6) and the MES did fulfil criteria for unidimensionality while the HAM-D(17) did not. Therefore, the extended use of the HAM-D(17) in drug trials may be questioned.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of sertraline versus nortriptyline in major depression in patients 70 and older

BACKGROUND: Few randomized, double-blind studies that examine antidepressant treatment in patients 70 years and older are available. To provide additional data on the safety and efficacy of antidepressants in this rapidly growing population segment, a subgroup analysis of a larger sertraline vs. nortriptyline elderly depression treatment study was performed. METHODS: Outpatients (N = 76) who met DSM-III-R criteria for major depression with a minimum Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) severity score of 18 were randomized to 12 weeks of flexible dose treatment with sertraline (50-150 mg) or nortriptyline (25-100 mg). RESULTS: Both treatments significantly improved depression as measured by the HAM-D and Clinical Global Impression scales. At Weeks 10, 12, and endpoint, sertraline demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in depression severity compared to nortriptyline as measured by improvement on the 24-item HAM-D (mean adjusted change score of 14.8 vs. 7.6, respectively, at Week 12; p = .001). Sixty-five percent of sertraline-treated patients were responders by Week 12 (50% or greater reduction from baseline in 24-item HAM-D score) compared to 26% of nortriptyline-treated patients (p < .05). Sertraline treatment had a significantly more positive effect, when compared to nortriptyline, across almost all associated measures of cognitive function, energy, anxiety, and quality of life and was better tolerated than nortriptyline, with a lower attrition rate/side effect burden. CONCLUSION: The efficacy advantage of sertraline appeared to be even greater in this subgroup of older patients drawn from a larger treatment study of depression that included elderly individuals over the age of 60.     

Treatment of dysthymia with sertraline: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in dysthymic patients without major depression

BACKGROUND: The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline has been shown to be efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Relatively few trials, however, have examined the role of pharmacotherapy in dysthymia without concurrent major depression. The current investigation focuses on the use of sertraline for the treatment of dysthymia. METHOD: In this 12-week, multicenter, double-blind study, 310 patients with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of dysthymic disorder without concurrent major depression were randomly assigned to receive either sertraline (N = 158) or placebo (N = 152). Sertraline was initiated at a dose of 50 mg daily, with titration permitted to a maximum of 200 mg daily. The primary evaluation criteria were the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Seasonal Affective Disorder Version (SIGH-SAD), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) scales. RESULTS: Mean percentage reductions for the intent-to-treat population in SIGH-SAD scores were 44.6% for the sertraline-treated group and 33.2% for the placebo-treated group (p = .03); MADRS scores, 43.6% and 33.0% (p = .02); and CGI-S scores, 32.8% and 22.8% (p = .02). A significantly greater proportion of the sertraline-treated group was classified as responders (defined for HAM-D and MADRS scores as a 50% score reduction and for CGI-I as a score of 1 or 2 by the final visit) and remitters (SIGH-SAD score < or = 8) relative to the placebo-treated group by the final visit. In addition, sertraline-treated patients experienced greater improvements in all 9 domains of the Battelle Quality of Life Questionnaire than placebo-treated patients did, with a significant difference observed in favor of sertraline in 8 of the 9 domains. The life satisfaction and social interaction quality of life domains showed significantly greater response in sertraline responders compared with placebo SIGH-SAD responders. Sertraline was well tolerated. Thirteen percent of the sertraline-treated group versus 8% of the placebo-treated group withdrew from therapy owing to adverse events (p = .14). CONCLUSION: Sertraline is efficacious and well tolerated in the short-term treatment of dysthymia without concurrent major depression.     

Light treatment of seasonal affective disorder in Switzerland

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) has been characterised by two or more depressive episodes in autumn or winter (with remission the following spring or summer), decreased energy, increased sleep, increased appetite, weight gain and carbohydrate craving. SAD patients were identified in a Swiss-German population; 22 participated in a light-therapy protocol (1 week bright white light 2,500 lux or dim yellow light 250 lux, from 06-08 h and 18-20 h). Both observer and self-ratings indicated a significant diminution of depressive symptoms with both lights. One week after withdrawal from yellow light, depression ratings relapsed to previous values; remission lasted longer after bright white light. Global VAS self-rating scales for "mood" and "well-being" however, and the Hamilton scale for atypical SAD symptoms, differentiated clearly between bright and dim light: only bright light showed an improvement that persisted after withdrawal. These results suggest that even though a placebo effect cannot be excluded, 4 h explicit light exposure/day may not be a negligible quantity. Light treatment promises to be a useful non-pharmacological intervention in certain forms of depressive illness.     

An 8-week multicenter,parallel-group,double-blind,placebo-controlled study of sertraline in elderly outpatients with major depression

OBJECTIVE: There have been few placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depressed elderly patients. This placebo-controlled study of sertraline was designed to confirm the results of non-placebo-controlled trials. METHOD: The subjects were outpatients age 60 years or older who had a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depressive disorder and a total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale of 18 or higher. The patients were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with placebo or a flexible daily dose of 50 or 100 mg of sertraline. The primary outcome variables were the Hamilton scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales for severity and improvement. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients assigned to sertraline and 376 assigned to placebo took at least one dose. At endpoint, the patients receiving sertraline evidenced significantly greater improvements than those receiving placebo on the Hamilton depression scale and CGI severity and improvement scales. The mean changes from baseline to endpoint in Hamilton score were -7.4 points (SD=6.3) for sertraline and -6.6 points (SD=6.4) for placebo. The rate of CGI-defined response at endpoint was significantly higher for sertraline (45%) than for placebo (35%), and the time to sustained response was significantly shorter for sertraline (median, 57 versus 61 days). There were few discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events, 8% for sertraline and 2% for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Sertraline was effective and well tolerated by older adults with major depression, although the drug-placebo difference was not large in this 8-week trial.     

Use of depression rating scales in chronic fatigue syndrome

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the performance of three commonly used depression rating scales in a hospital sample of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). METHODS: Sixty-one patients with CDC criteria for CFS completed the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) and the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). Current psychiatric status was assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R. DISORDERS: Patient version (SCID-P). Receiver operating curves were drawn for each of the depression rating scales. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of the patients were depressed according to the SCID-P. Using the standard cut-offs, both GHQ and HAM-D overestimated the number of depressed patients, whilst the HADS-D underestimated the number. The receiver operating curves suggest that the optimum cut-offs for GHQ, HAM-D and HADS-D in this population are 7/8, 13/14 and 8/9, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Standard cutoffs may not be appropriate when using depression rating scales in CFS patients in a tertiary care setting.     

Light therapy for bipolar disorder: a case series in women

OBJECTIVES: To perform a dose-ranging safety and efficacy study of bright light therapy for depression in women with bipolar disorder (BD). METHODS: Nine women with DSM-IV BD I or II in the depressed phase were exposed to 50 lux (illuminance at the receiving surface) red light for two weeks, after which they received 7,000 lux light therapy for two-week epochs of 15, 30 and 45 min daily. The Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with Atypical Depression Supplement and the Mania Rating Scale were used to assess mood symptoms. Four patients received morning light and five patients received midday light. RESULTS: Three of the four subjects treated with morning light developed mixed states. The fourth subject achieved a full, sustained response. To decrease the risk of inducing mixed episodes, we changed the time of light exposure to midday. Of the five women who received midday light therapy, two achieved full response and two showed early improvement but required a dose increase to sustain response. One woman remained depressed with 45 min of midday light but responded fully to a switch to morning light, 30 min daily. CONCLUSIONS: Women with bipolar illness are highly sensitive to morning bright light treatment; the induction of mixed states is a substantial risk. Initiating treatment with a brief duration (15 min) of midday light for bipolar depression is advisable.     

An open study of sertraline in patients with major depression who failed to respond to moclobemide

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sertraline in patients with major depression who have failed to respond to an adequate trial of moclobemide. METHOD: Sixty-three patients with major depression who had discontinued moclobemide within the last 6 weeks due to lack of efficacy were recruited from multiple psychiatric services in Victoria and Queensland. After a wash-out period, patients were treated with sertraline 50 mg once daily for 4 weeks. If there was an insufficient response, the dose was titrated upwards to a maximum of 200 mg/day, with 2 weeks at each dosage level. By the end of the study, patients had received a fixed dose of sertraline for 8 weeks. The main outcome measures were the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales. Secondary outcome measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). RESULTS: Of the 62 intention-to-treat patients enrolled, 48 (77%) responded to sertraline (i.e. experienced > or =50% reduction in HAMD total score from baseline and had a final HAMD score of < or =17). Fifty-four (87%) patients were at least 'minimally improved' on the CGI scale. There were also significant improvements in mean total MADRS and BDI scores. Sertraline was well tolerated. Adverse events were reported by 84% of patients, but only 5% withdrew due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patients with major depression who have failed to respond to moclobemide can generally be treated successfully with sertraline.     

Rapid antidepressant effects of sleep deprivation therapy correlates with serum BDNF changes in major depression

Recent reports have suggested that brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels are reduced in individuals suffering major depressive disorder and these levels normalize following antidepressant treatment. Various antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy are shown to have a positive effect on brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels in depressive patients. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of total sleep deprivation therapy on BDNF levels in major depressive patients.Patients were assigned to two treatment groups which consisted of 22 patients in the sertraline group and 19 patients in the total sleep deprivation plus sertraline group. Patients in the sleep deprivation group were treated with three total sleep deprivations in the first week of their treatment and received sertraline. Patients in sertraline group received only sertraline. BDNF levels were measured in the two treatment groups at baseline, 7th, 14th, and 42nd days. Patients were also evaluated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). A control group, consisting of 33 healthy volunteers had total sleep deprivation, BDNF levels and depression measured at baseline and after the total sleep deprivation.Results showed that serum BDNF levels were significantly lower at baseline in both treatment groups compared to controls. Decreased levels of BDNF were also negatively correlated with HAM-D scores. First single sleep deprivation and a series of three sleep deprivations accelerated the treatment response that significantly decreased HAM-D scores and increased BDNF levels.Total sleep deprivation and sertraline therapy is introduced to correlate with the rapid treatment response and BDNF changes in this study.     

Sertraline is more effective than imipramine in the treatment of non-melancholic depression: results from a multicentre,randomized study

The acute treatment efficacy, tolerability, and effects on health-related quality of life of sertraline (50-200 mg/day) versus imipramine (75-225 mg/day) were compared in outpatients with non-melancholic depression. The study employed an open-label, parallel-group design. One hundred and sixteen patients were randomized to receive sertraline and 123 to receive imipramine for 8 weeks. In the intent-to-treat (ITT), last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analysis, sertraline produced statistically significantly greater improvements in depressive (21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D(21)] scores of 24.9 and 24.4 were reduced to 10.3 and 13.1 at endpoint, P<.005) and anxiety symptoms (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A] scores of 21.8 and 21.9 were reduced to 9.5 and 13.9, P<.01), as well as in response (69.0% versus 53.7% at endpoint, P=.016) and remission rates (51.3% versus 38.0% at endpoint, P=.041) from week 4 onwards compared with imipramine. The proportion of patients who were 'very much improved' or 'much improved' (Clinical Global Impressions Scale of Improvement [CGI-I] score of 1 or 2) was significantly higher at endpoint in the sertraline group (76.1%) than in the imipramine group (62.8%) (P=.028). At week 8, patients in both treatment groups showed clear improvements in quality of life, although nonstatistically significant differences were evident in the quality of life of sertraline- versus imipramine-treated patients. Sertraline was significantly superior in tolerability with less discontinuations due to adverse events (10.3%) compared with the imipramine group (24.4%) (P=.004). It was concluded that sertraline is more effective than imipramine in the acute treatment of depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with non-melancholic depression.     

Bright light therapy decreases winter binge frequency in women with bulimia nervosa: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The study objective was to determine the effect of winter bright light therapy on binge and purge frequencies and depressive symptoms in subjects with bulimia nervosa. Thirty-four female bulimic outpatients were treated with either 10,000 lux bright white light or 50 lux dim red light (placebo control) during the winter months. In this double-blind study, the placebo group (n = 18) and the bright light group (n = 16) were matched for age, degree of seasonality (measured by the Seasonal Patterns Assessment Questionnaire [SPAQ]), and concurrent depression (measured by Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV [SCID]). Three weeks of baseline data collection were followed by 3 weeks of half-hour daily morning light treatment and 2 weeks of follow-up evaluation. There was a significant light-treatment by time interaction (Wilks' lambda = .81, F(2,28) = 3.31, P = .05). The mean binge frequency decreased significantly more from baseline to the end of treatment for the bright light group (F(1,29) = 6.41, P = .017) than for the placebo group. The level of depression (measured by daily Beck Depression Inventory [BDI] scores) did not significantly differ between the groups during any phase, and neither depression nor seasonality affected the response to light treatment. In this double-blind study, bulimic women who received 3 weeks of winter bright light treatment reported a reduced binge frequency between baseline and the active treatment period in comparison to subjects receiving dim red light.     

Light treatment for seasonal Winter depression in African-American vs Caucasian outpatients

AIM: To compare adherence, response, and remission with light treatment in African-American and Caucasian patients with Seasonal Affective Disorder.METHODS: Seventy-eight study participants, age range 18-64 (51 African-Americans and 27 Caucasians) recruited from the Greater Baltimore Metropolitan area, with diagnoses of recurrent mood disorder with seasonal pattern, and confirmed by a Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV, were enrolled in an open label study of daily bright light treatment. The trial lasted 6 wk with flexible dosing of light starting with 10000 lux bright light for 60 min daily in the morning. At the end of six weeks there were 65 completers. Three patients had Bipolar II disorder and the remainder had Major depressive disorder. Outcome measures were remission (score ≤ 8) and response (50% reduction) in symptoms on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (SIGH-SAD) as well as symptomatic improvement on SIGH-SAD and Beck Depression Inventory-II. Adherence was measured using participant daily log. Participant groups were compared using t-tests, chi square, linear and logistic regressions.RESULTS: The study did not find any significant group difference between African-Americans and their Caucasian counterparts in adherence with light treatment as well as in symptomatic improvement. While symptomatic improvement and rate of treatment response were not different between the two groups, African-Americans, after adjustment for age, gender and adherence, achieved a significantly lower remission rate (African-Americans 46.3%; Caucasians 75%; P = 0.02).CONCLUSION: This is the first study of light treatment in African-Americans, continuing our previous work reporting a similar frequency but a lower awareness of SAD and its treatment in African-Americans. Similar rates of adherence, symptomatic improvement and treatment response suggest that light treatment is a feasible, acceptable, and beneficial treatment for SAD in African-American patients. These results should lead to intensifying education initiatives to increase awareness of SAD and its treatment in African-American communities to increased SAD treatment engagement. In African-American vs Caucasian SAD patients a remission gap was identified, as reported before with antidepressant medications for non-seasonal depression, demanding sustained efforts to investigate and then address its causes.     

Sleep deprivation as a predictor of response to light therapy in major depression

Light therapy (LT) is regarded as the treatment of choice for seasonal affective disorder (SAD). In nonseasonal depression the results of light therapy are nonconclusive. Sleep deprivation (SD), however, is effective in 50-60% of the patients with major depression. The predictive value of Total Sleep Deprivation (TSD) for the treatment outcome of antidepressiva has been already examined. Purpose of the present study was to test whether light therapy is more beneficial in TSD responders than in TSD nonresponders. 40 inpatients with major depressive disorder completed one night of TSD. Twenty TSD responders and 20 TSD nonresponders were randomly assigned to 14 days of bright light therapy (2500 lux, 7-9 a.m.) or 14 days of dim light therapy (red light 50 lux, 7-9 a.m.). Manova with repeated measurements revealed a significant difference in the course of depression over the time between TSD responders and nonresponders, but no significant difference between bright and dim light. Questions of placebo effect, of SAD and of personality variables as predictors of response to SD and LT are being discussed.