4.4 Article

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive blue-blocking glasses for the treatment of sleep and circadian rhythm in patients with bipolar disorder

期刊

BIPOLAR DISORDERS
卷 22, 期 7, 页码 739-748

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.12912

关键词

bipolar disorder; blue light; blue-blocking glasses; circadian rhythm; RCT; sleep

资金

  1. Scientific Research from JSPS KAKENHI [18K15529]
  2. Japan Foundation for Neuroscience and Mental Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Recent studies have suggested that evening blue light exposure is associated with sleep and circadian rhythm abnormalities. This study examined the effect of blue-blocking (BB) glasses on sleep and circadian rhythm in patients with bipolar disorder (BD). Methods We used a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded design. Outpatients with BD and also with insomnia were randomly assigned to wear either orange glasses (BB) or clear ones (placebo) and were instructed to use these from 20:00 hours until bedtime for 2 weeks. The primary outcome metric was the difference in change from baseline to after intervention in sleep quality, as measured by the visual analog scale (VAS). Results Forty-three patients were included in this study (BB group, 21; placebo group, 22). The change in sleep quality as per the VAS metric was not significantly different between the two groups (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.34 to 24.72; P = .13). However, the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire score had shifted to an advanced rhythm in the BB group and to a delayed rhythm in the placebo group, and the difference in these changes was statistically significant (95% CI, 1.69-7.45; P = .003). The change in the actigraphy sleep parameters and mood symptoms was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion Although concurrent medications may have influenced, our results suggest that BB glasses may be useful as an adjunctive treatment for circadian rhythm issues in patients with BD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据