Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30038151›Full record

Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2018

Therapeutic potential of valproic acid in advanced glaucoma: A pilot study.

Karthikeyan Mahalingam, Abadh Kumar Chaurasia, Lakshminarayanan Gowtham, Shikha Gupta, Bindu I Somarajan, Thirumurthy Velpandian, Ramanjit Sihota, Viney Gupta

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Epigenetics in Glaucoma.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Immunomodulatory and Antioxidant Drugs in Glaucoma Treatment.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  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 1 institution in 1 country.

Karthikeyan MahalingamDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abadh Kumar ChaurasiaDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Lakshminarayanan GowthamDepartment of Ocular Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Shikha GuptaDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Bindu I SomarajanDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Thirumurthy VelpandianDepartment of Ocular Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Ramanjit SihotaDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Viney GuptaDr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Oral valproic acid (VPA) used as an anticonvulsant has been shown to improve contrast threshold sensitivities in patients receiving it on long-term. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of oral VPA in improving visual function in eyes with advanced stage glaucoma. Methods: In this prospective randomized study, 31 patients (n = 31 eyes) with advanced stage glaucoma (with an intraocular pressure <16 mmHg) in at least one eye received oral VPA 500 mg once a day for 3 months and 33 patients (n = 33 eyes) continued on glaucoma therapy. Patients were followed up at 3 and 12 months (to evaluate the legacy effect of the drug). Blood VPA concentrations were measured at 3 months. Following parameters were assessed at baseline, 3 months and 12 months: log of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) visual acuity, mean deviation on visual fields, and multifocal electroretinogram (ERG). Results: Median LogMar visual acuity in the VPA group improved from 0.3 at baseline to 0.18 and 0.18 at 3 and 12 months, respectively (P < 0.01). In comparison, the median visual acuity in control group at baseline was 0.18 and showed neither worsening nor improvement over 3 and 12 months (P = 0.56). The improvement in VPA group was significant compared to the control group (P < 0.01; Wilcoxon Signed-rank test). An improvement in one line was experienced in 11 out of 31 eyes in the VPA group compared to 1 out of 33 eyes among controls (P = 0.003). No significant improvement was noted in the mean deviation, and the multifocal ERG (Latency and amplitudes) in the VPA-treated patients. The average blood VPA concentration measured at 3 months of therapy was 26 ± 8.9 μg/ml (range 8-55 μg/ml) which is much lower than that achieved during anticonvulsant therapy. None of the patients complained of any adverse effects that required stopping VPA therapy. Conclusion: A 3 months oral VPA therapy results in some improvement in visual acuity in a subgroup of eyes with advanced glaucoma and the effect was seen to persist 9 months after the drug was stopped.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAdministration, OralDose-Response Relationship, DrugElectroretinographyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGABA AgentsGlaucomaHumansIntraocular PressureMalePilot ProjectsProspective StudiesRetinaTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeGABA AgentsValproic AcidEnd-stage glaucomaglaucomaneuroprotectionvalproic acid

Identifiers

PMID30038151
PMCPMC6080453
OpenAlexW2884899320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.