BACKGROUND/AIM: To examine the efficacy and safety of valproic acid (VPA) in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). METHODS: Thirteen eyes were examined before and after brief treatment (average 4 months) with VPA. Visual fields (VF) for each eye were defined using digitised Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry tracings. VF areas were log-transformed and VF loss/gain relative to baseline was calculated. Visual acuity was measured using a Snellen chart at a distance of 20 feet (6.1 m). Values were converted to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) score. RESULTS: Nine eyes had improved VF with treatment, two eyes had decreased VF and two eyes experienced no change, with an overall average increase of 11%. Assuming typical loss in VF area without treatment, this increase in VF was statistically significant (p<0.02). An average decrease (0.172) in the logMAR scores was seen in these 13 eyes, which translates to a positive change in Snellen score of approximately 20/47 to 20/32, which was significant (p<0.02) assuming no loss in acuity without treatment. Side effects were mild and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Treatment with VPA is suggestive of a therapeutic benefit to patients with RP. A placebo-controlled clinical trial will be necessary to assess the efficacy and safety of VPA for RP rigorously.
BACKGROUND/AIM: To examine the efficacy and safety of valproic acid (VPA) in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). METHODS: Thirteen eyes were examined before and after brief treatment (average 4 months) with VPA. Visual fields (VF) for each eye were defined using digitised Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry tracings. VF areas were log-transformed and VF loss/gain relative to baseline was calculated. Visual acuity was measured using a Snellen chart at a distance of 20&emsp14;feet (6.1 m). Values were converted to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) score. RESULTS: Nine eyes had improved VF with treatment, two eyes had decreased VF and two eyes experienced no change, with an overall average increase of 11%. Assuming typical loss in VF area without treatment, this increase in VF was statistically significant (p<0.02). An average decrease (0.172) in the logMAR scores was seen in these 13 eyes, which translates to a positive change in Snellen score of approximately 20/47 to 20/32, which was significant (p<0.02) assuming no loss in acuity without treatment. Side effects were mild and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Treatment with VPA is suggestive of a therapeutic benefit to patients with RP. A placebo-controlled clinical trial will be necessary to assess the efficacy and safety of VPA for RP rigorously.
Authors: Michael P Barry; Ava K Bittner; Liancheng Yang; Rebecca Marcus; Mian Haris Iftikhar; Gislin Dagnelie Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Ruanne Y J Vent-Schmidt; Runxia H Wen; Zusheng Zong; Colette N Chiu; Beatrice M Tam; Christopher G May; Orson L Moritz Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: David G Birch; Paul S Bernstein; Alessandro Iannacone; Mark E Pennesi; Byron L Lam; John Heckenlively; Karl Csaky; Mary Elizabeth Hartnett; Kevin L Winthrop; Thiran Jayasundera; Dianna K Hughbanks-Wheaton; Judith Warner; Paul Yang; Gary Edd Fish; Michael P Teske; Neal L Sklaver; Laura Erker; Elvira Chegarnov; Travis Smith; Aimee Wahle; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Jennifer McCormack; Robert Lindblad; Steven Bramer; Stephen Rose; Patricia Zilliox; Peter J Francis; Richard G Weleber Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Ekaterina S Lobanova; Stella Finkelstein; Nikolai P Skiba; Vadim Y Arshavsky Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 11.205