Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38361993›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Efficacy of biologically-directed daylight therapy on sleep and circadian rhythm in Parkinson's disease: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled, phase 2 clinical trial.

Beatrix Feigl, Simon J G Lewis, Lucy D Burr, Daniel Schweitzer, Subodh Gnyawali, Dimitrios Vagenas, Drew D Carter, Andrew J Zele

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A double-blind, controlled trial of circadian effective light therapy in patients with Parkinson's disease.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Update on sleep disorders in advanced Parkinson's disease: a narrative review.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Beatrix FeiglCentre for Vision and Eye Research, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Simon J G LewisBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
Lucy D BurrDepartment of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Mater Health, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia.
Daniel SchweitzerCentre of Neurosciences, Mater Health, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia.
Subodh GnyawaliCentre for Vision and Eye Research, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Dimitrios VagenasSchool of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Drew D CarterCentre for Vision and Eye Research, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Andrew J ZeleCentre for Vision and Eye Research, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AUMater Health Services · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: New non-pharmacological treatments for improving non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD) are urgently needed. Previous light therapies for modifying sleep behaviour lacked standardised protocols and were not personalised for an individual patient chronotype. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a biologically-directed light therapy in PD that targets retinal inputs to the circadian system on sleep, as well as other non-motor and motor functions. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled trial at the Queensland University of Technology, Australia, participants with mild to moderate PD were computer randomised (1:1) to receive one of two light therapies that had the same photometric luminance and visual appearance to allow blinding of investigators and participants to the intervention. One of these biologically-directed lights matched natural daylight (Day Mel), which is known to stimulate melanopsin cells. The light therapy of the other treatment arm of the study, specifically supplemented the stimulation of retinal melanopsin cells (Enhanced Mel), targeting deficits to the circadian system. Both lights were administered 30 min per day over 4-weeks and personalised to an individual patient's chronotype, while monitoring environmental light exposure with actigraphy. Co-primary endpoints were a change from baseline in mean sleep macrostructure (polysomnography, PSG) and an endocrine biomarker of circadian phase (dim light melatonin secretion onset, DLMO) at weeks 4 and 6. Participants data were analysed using an intention to treat principle. All endpoints were evaluated by applying a mixed model analysis. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000077864. Findings: Between February 4, 2021 and August 8, 2022, 144 participants with PD were consecutively screened, 60 enrolled and randomly assigned to a light intervention. There was no significant difference in co-primary outcomes between randomised groups overall or at any individual timepoint during follow-up. The mean (95% CI) for PSG, N3% was 24.15 (19.82-28.48) for Day Mel (n = 23) and 19.34 (15.20-23.47) for the Enhanced Mel group (n = 25) in week 4 (p = 0.12); and 21.13 (16.99-25.28) for Day Mel (n = 26) and 18.48 (14.34-22.62) for the Enhanced Mel group (n = 25) in week 6, (p = 0.37). The mean (95% CI) DLMO (decimal time) was 19.82 (19.20-20.44) for Day Mel (n = 22) and 19.44 (18.85-20.04) for the Enhanced Mel group (n = 24) in week 4 (p = 0.38); and 19.90 (19.27-20.53) for Day Mel (n = 23) and 19.04 (18.44-19.64) for the Enhanced Mel group (n = 25) in week 6 (p = 0.05). However, both the controlled daylight (Day Mel) and the enhanced melanopsin (Enhanced Mel) interventions demonstrated significant improvement in primary PSG sleep macrostructure. The restorative deep sleep phase (PSG, N3) significantly improved at week 6 in both groups [model-based mean difference to baseline (95% CI): -3.87 (-6.91 to -0.83), p = 0.04]. There was a phase-advance in DLMO in both groups which did not reach statistical significance between groups at any time-point. There were no safety concerns or severe adverse events related to the intervention. Interpretation: Both the controlled daylight and melanopsin booster light showed efficacy in improving measures of restorative deep sleep in people with mild to moderate PD. That there was no significant difference between the two intervention groups may be due to the early disease stage. The findings suggest that controlled indoor daylight that is personalised to the individuals' chronotype could be effective for improving sleep in early to moderate PD, and further studies evaluating controlled daylight interventions are now required utilising this standardised approach, including in advanced PD. Funding: The Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, Shake IT Up Australia, National Health and Medical Research Council, and Australian Research Council.

Indexed as

LightMelanopsinMotorPolysomnographySleep

Identifiers

PMID38361993
PMCPMC10867415
OpenAlexW4391862539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.