4.4 Article

Treatment with citicoline eye drops enhances retinal function and neural conduction along the visual pathways in open angle glaucoma

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-015-3044-9

关键词

Glaucoma; PERG; VEP; Citicoline

资金

  1. Ministry of Health [2012001703-20]
  2. Fondazione Roma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the retinal function and the neural conduction along the visual pathways after treatment with citicoline eye drops in patients with open angle glaucoma (OAG). Fifty-six OAG patients (mean age 52.4 +/- 4.72 years, IOP < 18 mmHg with beta-blocker monotherapy only) were enrolled. Of these, 47 eyes completed the study: 24 OAG eyes were treated with topical citicoline (OMK1A (R), Omikron Italia, 3 drops/day) (GC eyes) over a 4-month period (month 4) followed by a 2-month period of citicoline wash-out (month 6), and another 23 OAG eyes were only treated with beta-blocker monotherapy (GP eyes). In GC and GP eyes, pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) were assessed at baseline and at months 4 and 6 in both groups. At baseline, similar (ANOVA, p > 0.01) PERG and VEP values in GC and GP eyes were observed. After treatment with topical citicoline, a significant (p < 0.01) increase of PERG P50-N95 and VEP N75-P100 amplitudes, and a significant (p < 0.01) shortening of VEP P100 implicit times were found. In GC eyes, the shortening of VEP P100 implicit times was correlated significantly (p < 0.01) with the increase of PERG P50-N95 amplitudes. After a 2-month period of topical Citicoline wash-out, PERG and VEP values were similar (p > 0.01) to baseline ones. GP eyes showed not significant changes of PERG and VEP values during the entire follow-up. Topical treatment with citicoline in OAG eyes induces an enhancement of the retinal bioelectrical responses (increase of PERG amplitude) with a consequent improvement of the bioelectrical activity of the visual cortex (shortening and increase of VEP implicit time and amplitude, respectively).

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