PURPOSE:Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) was supplemented in a single-site, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial designed to slow vision loss associated with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP); the DHAX Trial. We previously reported no significant differences between supplemented and placebo groups in intent-to-treat analysis of primary ERG outcomes. Assessed herein are hypothesis-generating measures of ancillary visual function outcomes in participants fully adhering to trial protocol. METHODS:Male participants with XLRP (range, 7-31 years) received 30 mg DHA/kg/d (n = 29) orplacebo (n = 22) for 4 years. Visual outcomes were measured annually and red blood cell (RBC) DHA determined every 6 months. RESULTS:Oral DHA supplementation increased mean RBC-DHA levels by 4-fold (P < 0.0001) over placebo. No group differences in progression were found for visual acuity (P = 0.11), shape discrimination (P = 0.18), or fundus appearance (P = 0.70). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) became available during year 2 of the trial; no group differences were seen in ellipsoid zone constriction (P = 0.87) over 2 years. Yearly rates of progression were reduced for dark-adapted thresholds (P = 0.06) and visual field sensitivity for foveal, macular, peripheral, total, and ellipsoid zone regions by DHA supplementation (P = 0.039, P = 0.031, P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.033). Rates of visual field sensitivity decline were dependent on RBC-DHA (P = 0.046 to <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation of DHA significantly elevated blood DHA levels and reduced the rate of progression in final dark-adapted thresholds and visual field sensitivity. From the relationship between RBC-DHA and the rate of field sensitivity loss, we can extrapolate that an RBC-DHA level of 17% could minimize the decline in field sensitivity. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00100230.)
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) was supplemented in a single-site, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial designed to slow vision loss associated with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP); the DHAX Trial. We previously reported no significant differences between supplemented and placebo groups in intent-to-treat analysis of primary ERG outcomes. Assessed herein are hypothesis-generating measures of ancillary visual function outcomes in participants fully adhering to trial protocol. METHODS: Male participants with XLRP (range, 7-31 years) received 30 mg DHA/kg/d (n = 29) or placebo (n = 22) for 4 years. Visual outcomes were measured annually and red blood cell (RBC) DHA determined every 6 months. RESULTS: Oral DHA supplementation increased mean RBC-DHA levels by 4-fold (P < 0.0001) over placebo. No group differences in progression were found for visual acuity (P = 0.11), shape discrimination (P = 0.18), or fundus appearance (P = 0.70). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) became available during year 2 of the trial; no group differences were seen in ellipsoid zone constriction (P = 0.87) over 2 years. Yearly rates of progression were reduced for dark-adapted thresholds (P = 0.06) and visual field sensitivity for foveal, macular, peripheral, total, and ellipsoid zone regions by DHA supplementation (P = 0.039, P = 0.031, P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.033). Rates of visual field sensitivity decline were dependent on RBC-DHA (P = 0.046 to <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation of DHA significantly elevated blood DHA levels and reduced the rate of progression in final dark-adapted thresholds and visual field sensitivity. From the relationship between RBC-DHA and the rate of field sensitivity loss, we can extrapolate that an RBC-DHA level of 17% could minimize the decline in field sensitivity. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00100230.)
Authors: Dennis R Hoffman; Richard C Theuer; Yolanda S Castañeda; Dianna H Wheaton; Rain G Bosworth; Anna R O'Connor; Sarah E Morale; Lindsey E Wiedemann; Eileen E Birch Journal: J Nutr Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Dennis R Hoffman; Kirsten G Locke; Dianna H Wheaton; Gary E Fish; Rand Spencer; David G Birch Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: J Thomas Brenna; Behzad Varamini; Robert G Jensen; Deborah A Diersen-Schade; Julia A Boettcher; Linda M Arterburn Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Donald C Hood; Christine E Lin; Margot A Lazow; Kirsten G Locke; Xian Zhang; David G Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 4.799
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: N Brito-García; T Del Pino-Sedeño; M M Trujillo-Martín; R M Coco; E Rodríguez de la Rúa; I Del Cura-González; P Serrano-Aguilar Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: David G Birch; Lea D Bennett; Jacque L Duncan; Richard G Weleber; Mark E Pennesi Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Margaret R Strampe; Alison L Huckenpahler; Brian P Higgins; Sergey Tarima; Alexis Visotcky; Kimberly E Stepien; Christine N Kay; Joseph Carroll Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 3.283