| Literature DB >> 31687623 |
Iulia Chițu1, Liliana-Mary Voinea1,2, Sânziana Istrate1,2, Alexandra Vrapciu1,2, Radu Constantin Ciuluvică2, Ruxandra Tudosescu1,3.
Abstract
Objectives. Neuroprotective treatment, including citicoline, is a new perspective in glaucoma management, having the role of progression delay. The purpose of the present study was to observe the evolution of the different parameters in patients with glaucoma treated with citicoline. Methods. 22 patients with GPUD were enrolled in the study, and they received oral citicoline in addition to the ocular hypotensive therapy. Investigations were performed at the beginning of the current study, then at 3 months and 6 months, and included, besides full ophthalmologic checkup and IOP determination, optic nerve and RGCs OCT, and visual evoked potentials, pattern and flash. The data we obtained were statistically analyzed with the SPSS (Microsoft) program. Results. The outcomes of the study following VEP wave analysis indicated variations in P100 wave amplitude, but after 6 months period, an increase was found. Also, the P2 wave amplitude recorded statistically insignificant variations. The increase in P2 latency at 6 months was noted as statistically significant. Negative correlations were also met between the thickness of the RGC layer and the P100 latency, but also between the amplitude and the latency of this wave. At 6 months, a positive correlation between the RGC layer and the P100 amplitude was observed. The RNFL thickness at the optical disc had higher values at the 6 months visit, it was statistically significant, and a slight increase in the thickness of the RGC layer between successive visits was noted. These might be an examination artifact because clinically they are not possible. The RNFL thickness showed a positive correlation with the amplitude of P100 and P2 waves. Conclusions. The study of the parameters and their correlations demonstrated that citicoline had positive effects in glaucoma on certain aspects, data confirmed by literature. ©Romanian Society of Ophthalmology.Entities:
Keywords: citicoline; glaucoma; neuroprotection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31687623 PMCID: PMC6820495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rom J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2457-4325
Correlations between the RGCs layer, P100 wave amplitude and latency on the first visit
| Correlations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG_V0 | PEV_P100_AMP_V0 | PEV_P100_LAT_V0 | ||
| CG_V0 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.244 | -0.481** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.152 | 0.003 | ||
| N | 39 | 36 | 36 | |
| PEV_P100_AMP_V0 | Pearson Correlation | 0.244 | 1 | -0.600** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.152 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 36 | 40 | 40 | |
| PEV_P100_LAT_V0 | Pearson Correlation | -0.481** | -0.600** | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.003 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 36 | 40 | 40 | |
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
Correlations between RGCs, P100 wave amplitude, and latency at the 6 months visit
| Correlations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG_V2 | PEV_P100_AMP_V2 | PEV_P100_LAT_V2 | ||
| CG_V2 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.433** | -0.135 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.007 | 0.418 | ||
| N | 38 | 38 | 38 | |
| PEV_P100_AMP_V2 | Pearson Correlation | 0.433** | 1 | -0.284 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.007 | 0.075 | ||
| N | 38 | 40 | 40 | |
| PEV_P100_LAT_V2 | Pearson Correlation | -0.135 | -0.284 | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.418 | 0.075 | ||
| N | 38 | 40 | 40 | |
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
Correlations between RGCs, P2 wave amplitude and latency at 3 months visit
| Correlations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG_V1 | PEV_P2_AMP_V1 | PEV_P2_LAT_V1 | ||
| CG_V1 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.306* | 0.179 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.046 | 0.250 | ||
| N | 43 | 43 | 43 | |
| PEV_P2_AMP_V1 | Pearson Correlation | 0.306* | 1 | 0.182 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.046 | 0.243 | ||
| N | 43 | 43 | 43 | |
| PEV_P2_LAT_V1 | Pearson Correlation | 0.179 | 0.182 | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.250 | 0.243 | ||
| N | 43 | 43 | 43 | |
| *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
Comparison between RNFL thicknesses at different examinations
| Paired Samples Test | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paired Differences | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | ||||||||
| Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | Lower | Upper | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | ||
| Pair 1 | RNFL_OCT_V0 - RNFL_OCT_V1 | -1.585 | 3.860 | .603 | -2.804 | -0.367 | -2.630 | 40 | 0.012 |
| Pair 2 | RNFL_OCT_V1 - RNFL_OCT_V2 | -0.889 | 4.374 | 0.729 | -2.369 | 0.591 | -1.219 | 35 | 0.231 |
| Pair 3 | RNFL_OCT_V0 - RNFL_OCT_V2 | -2.447 | 4.385 | 0.711 | -3.889 | -1.006 | -3.441 | 37 | 0.001 |
Correlations between RNFL layer, P100 and P2 amplitude and latency at the initial visit
| Correlations | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RNFL_OCT_V0 | PEV_P100_AMP_V0 | PEV_P100_LAT_V0 | PEV_P2_AMP_V0 | PEV_P2_LAT_V0 | ||
| RNFL_OCT_V0 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.360* | -0.493** | 0.415** | 0.374* |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.022 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.016 | ||
| N | 43 | 40 | 40 | 41 | 41 | |
| PEV_P100_AMP_V0 | Pearson Correlation | 0.360* | 1 | -0.600** | 0.463** | -0.058 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.022 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.723 | ||
| N | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | |
| PEV_P100_LAT_V0 | Pearson Correlation | 0-.493** | -0.600** | 1 | -0.297 | -0.036 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.063 | 0.826 | ||
| N | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | |
| PEV_P2_AMP_V0 | Pearson Correlation | 0.415** | 0.463** | -0.297 | 1 | -0.073 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.063 | 0.651 | ||
| N | 41 | 40 | 40 | 41 | 41 | |
| PEV_P2_LAT_V0 | Pearson Correlation | 0.374* | -0.058 | -0.036 | -0.073 | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.016 | 0.723 | 0.826 | 0.651 | ||
| N | 41 | 40 | 40 | 41 | 41 | |
| *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). | ||||||
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
Correlations between RNFL layer, P100 and P2 amplitude and latency at the 6 months visit
| Correlations | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RNFL_OCT_V2 | PEV_P100_AMP_V2 | PEV_P100_LAT_V2 | PEV_P2_AMP_V2 | PEV_P2_LAT_V2 | ||
| RNFL_OCT_V2 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.400* | -0.207 | 0.582** | 0.368* |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.013 | 0.213 | 0.000 | 0.023 | ||
| N | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | |
| PEV_P100_AMP_V2 | Pearson Correlation | 0.400* | 1 | -0.284 | 0.562** | -0.145 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.013 | 0.075 | 0.000 | 0.371 | ||
| N | 38 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | |
| PEV_P100_LAT_V2 | Pearson Correlation | -0.207 | -0.284 | 1 | -0.232 | 0.134 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.213 | 0.075 | 0.149 | 0.411 | ||
| N | 38 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | |
| PEV_P2_AMP_V2 | Pearson Correlation | 0.582** | 0.562** | -0.232 | 1 | 0.255 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.149 | 0.112 | ||
| N | 38 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | |
| PEV_P2_LAT_V2 | Pearson Correlation | 0.368* | -0.145 | 0.134 | 0.255 | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.023 | 0.371 | 0.411 | 0.112 | ||
| N | 38 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | |
| *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). | ||||||
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |