4.6 Article

Effects of Citicoline, Homotaurine, and Vitamin E on Contrast Sensitivity and Visual-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Preliminary Study

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 25, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules25235614

关键词

primary open-angle glaucoma; citicoline; homotaurine; vitamin E; contrast sensitivity; quality of life; SPARCS; neuroprotection; glaucoma medical treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of supplementation with a fixed combination of citicoline 500 mg, homotaurine 50 mg, and vitamin E 12 mg (CIT/HOMO/VITE) on contrast sensitivity and visual-related quality of life in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in mild stage. This was a multicenter, observational, cross-over, short-term, pilot study on POAG patients with stable controlled intraocular pressure (IOP). Patients were randomly assigned to Group 1 (current topical therapy for 4 months and then current topical therapy plus CIT/HOMO/VITE for 4 months) or Group 2 (CIT/HOMO/VITE in addition to current topical therapy for 4 months and then topical therapy alone for 4 months). Best-corrected visual acuity, IOP, visual field, and the Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity (SPARCS) test score were recorded at baseline and after 4 and 8 months. The Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 (GQL-15) questionnaire was administered at each check time. Forty-four patients were assigned to Group 1 and 65 to Group 2. Over the follow-up period, there were no significant changes in IOP or visual field findings, whereas SPARCS and GQL-15 findings significantly varied from baseline, both being improved in subjects treated with CIT/HOMO/VITE fixed combination. These results demonstrate that a daily intake of a fixed combination of citicoline, homotaurine, and vitamin E in addition to the topical medical treatment significantly increased the total score of the contrast sensitivity test and the quality of life in patients with POAG.

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

4.6
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