[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, IP: 140.234.253.

9]

Original Article

Therapeutic potential of valproic acid in advanced glaucoma: A pilot study

Karthikeyan Mahalingam, Abadh Kumar Chaurasia, Lakshminarayanan Gowtham1, Shikha Gupta,

Bindu I Somarajan, Thirumurthy Velpandian1, Ramanjit Sihota, Viney Gupta

Purpose: Oral valproic acid (VPA) used as an anticonvulsant has been shown to improve contrast threshold Access this article online
sensitivities in patients receiving it on long‑term. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of oral VPA in Website:
improving visual function in eyes with advanced stage glaucoma. Methods: In this prospective randomized www.ijo.in
study, 31 patients (n = 31 eyes) with advanced stage glaucoma (with an intraocular pressure <16 mmHg) in DOI:
at least one eye received oral VPA 500 mg once a day for 3 months and 33 patients (n = 33 eyes) continued 10.4103/ijo.IJO_108_18
on glaucoma therapy. Patients were followed up at 3 and 12 months (to evaluate the legacy effect of the PMID:
*****
drug). Blood VPA concentrations were measured at 3  months. Following parameters were assessed at
baseline, 3 months and 12 months: log of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) visual acuity, mean Quick Response Code:
deviation on visual fields, and multifocal electroretinogram (ERG). Results: Median LogMar visual acuity in
the VPA group improved from 0.3 at baseline to 0.18 and 0.18 at 3 and 12 months, respectively (P < 0.01). In
comparison, the median visual acuity in control group at baseline was 0.18 and showed neither worsening
nor improvement over 3 and 12 months (P = 0.56). The improvement in VPA group was significant compared
to the control group (P < 0.01; Wilcoxon Signed‑rank test). An improvement in one line was experienced in
11 out of 31 eyes in the VPA group compared to 1 out of 33 eyes among controls (P = 0.003). No significant
improvement was noted in the mean deviation, and the multifocal ERG (Latency and amplitudes)
in the VPA‑treated patients. The average blood VPA concentration measured at 3  months of therapy
was 26 ± 8.9 µg/ml (range 8–55 µg/ml) which is much lower than that achieved during anticonvulsant
therapy. None of the patients complained of any adverse effects that required stopping VPA therapy.
Conclusion: A  3  months oral VPA therapy results in some improvement in visual acuity in a subgroup
of eyes with advanced glaucoma and the effect was seen to persist 9 months after the drug was stopped.

Key words: End‑stage glaucoma, glaucoma, neuroprotection, valproic acid

Patients with advanced glaucoma have been shown to have pathway associated with extracellular‑signal‑regulated
progression despite intraocular pressure (IOP) control.[1‑3] Even kinases (ERK). [17] It has been shown to induce neuronal
in the absence of perimetric progression of the disease, patients differentiation and promote neurite growth, however, there
may feel fluctuation in their visual function which impairs are no clinical studies evaluating the therapeutic potential of
their quality of life. Neuroprotective agents have been tried in oral VPA in glaucoma.[18] This prospective randomized study
advanced glaucoma without significant benefit.[4‑8] Few clinical was undertaken to evaluate the therapeutic effect of oral VPA
studies have shown beneficial effect of oral valproic acid (VPA) as a neuroprotective agent in patients with advanced to almost
in retinitis pigmentosa (RP).[9‑12] Experimental studies in optic end‑stage glaucoma.
nerve crush injury and experimental glaucoma have shown
neuroprotective effect of VPA.[13,14] Methods
The neuroprotective effect of VPA is postulated through Advanced to end‑stage glaucoma patients were recruited from
its suppression of pro‑apopoptotic molecules such as caspase the glaucoma services of our tertiary care center. Advanced
3, caspase 8, caspase 9, Bax and induces the antiapoptotic glaucoma was defined as: A  visual field limited  <10° radius
factors such as Bcl‑2 and Bcl‑Xl.[15] VPA can directly upregulate with size III stimulus on Humphrey visual‑field analyzer and
cyclic AMP response element binding protein (CREB) at having a mean deviation worse than‑24  dB. Clearance from
transcriptional level and reverse degeneration associated with our Institutional Ethics Committee was obtained. Informed
histone deacetylation in neurons.[16] CREB is a transcription consent was obtained from all patients, and the study was
factor mediating stimulus dependent expression of genes carried out as per the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
critical to plasticity, growth, and survival of neurons. VPA
reduces oxidative stress and stimulates cell survival signaling
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License,
which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially,
as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute
the identical terms.
of Medical Sciences, 1Department of Ocular Pharmacology, All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
For reprints contact: [email protected]
Correspondence to: Prof. Viney Gupta, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for
Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Cite this article as: Mahalingam K, Chaurasia AK, Gowtham L, Gupta S,
Nagar, New Delhi ‑ 110 029, India. E‑mail: [email protected] Somarajan BI, Velpandian T, et al. Therapeutic potential of valproic acid
in advanced glaucoma: A pilot study. Indian J Ophthalmol 2018;66:1104-8.
Manuscript received: 21.01.18; Revision accepted: 23.04.18

© 2018 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, IP: 140.234.253.9]

Mahalingam, et al.: Valproic acid for Glaucoma

August 2018 1105

Patients with advanced glaucoma were randomized into 0.18 (range 0–0.78) (Wilcoxon‑signed rank test). On the other
intervention and control group using computer generated hand, the median logMAR visual acuity in control group was
software (Sealed Envelope Ltd. 2016) for block randomization. 0.18 (range 0–0.78) at baseline, 0.18 (at 3 months [P = 0.56] and
Block randomization was used to ensure equal participants 0.18 [range: 0–0.78] at 12 months [P = 0.17]). The improvement
in each group. Inclusion criteria: Patients above the age of in VPA group was significant compared to the control group
30 years with advanced stage glaucoma in at least one eye and at 3 and 12 months (P < 0.01), Fig. 1. An improvement in one
well‑controlled IOP (<16 mmHg) in that eye with a Snellen visual line (Snellen’s visual acuity) was experienced in 11 out of 31
acuity of at least 6/36. If both eyes of the patient were eligible eyes in the VPA group compared to 1 out of 33 eyes among
the eye with the better visual field was included in the study. controls (P  =  0.003) at 3  months. There was no patient who
We excluded patients with any other disease that might have showed more than 1 line improvement. None of the eyes in the
contributed to visual field loss at the time of initial visual‑field VPA had a drop in Snellen’s acuity at 3 month while one eye in
test such as other optic neuropathies, stroke, brain tumors, the control group had one line in drop in visual acuity (P > 0.99,
retinal vein or artery occlusion, macular disease, cataract and Fisher’s exact test).
proliferative diabetic retinopathy, patients allergic to VPA or to Within the VPA group, those who showed a one‑line gain
peanut oil, patients with deranged liver function test, hepatitis, in Snellen’s visual acuity were compared with those who did
alcoholic liver disease, and women likely to conceive. not show a change. Table 2 shows the characteristics of patients
Patients in the intervention group were given oral who improved were not different from those who did not.
VPA 500  mg once a day for 3  months and followed up Visual field
for 1 year. Controls not receiving VPA were followed up,
In the VPA group, the mean deviation was  −28.29  ±  3.12 at
to evaluate the change in visual function over 1 year and
baseline, −28.308 ± 2.93 at 3 months (P = 0.97), and − 28.756 ± 28
compared with patients who received VPA. Both the groups
at 12 months (P = 0.087). Among the controls, the visual field
received routine IOP lowering therapy. Outcomes were
mean deviation was −26.96 ± 2.06 at baseline, −26.99 ± 2.08 at
monitored regarding Snellen Visual Acuity (converted to 3 months (P = 0.86), and −27.16 ± 2.73 at 12 months (P = 0.52).
LogMAR for analysis), 10‑2 SITA standard visual field and There was no statistically significant change noted in either
multifocal electroretinogram (ERG) (as per the guidelines of groups or a difference seen between the groups.
International Society of Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision
using Monopack 3). We chose Multifocal ERG over pattern Multifocal electroretinogram
ERG to detect multiple local retinal responses as the latter We analyzed P1N2 amplitude and implicit time in five
does not provide the measure of pathological changes in rings [Fig.  2a and b]. Ring 1 representing  <2° field, ring 2
localized retinal areas.[19‑21] Assessment of these parameters representing 2°–5° field, ring 3 representing 5°–10° field, ring
was performed at baseline before starting therapy, at 3 months
and 1 year of starting therapy (9 months of cessation of VPA,
Table 1: Comparison of baseline characteristics between
to look for a legacy effect of the drug). Liver function tests the two groups
were measured before starting VPA and at 3rd month. Total
plasma VPA concentrations were assessed at 3 months after Valproic acid Controls P
completion of therapy using the liquid chromatographic group (n=31) (n=33)
technique coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (Q‑Trap Age (years) 53.03±18.28 54.44±13.41 0.756a
4000, AB sciex). Male:female 28:3 29:4 0.703b
Statistical analysis Baseline visual
acuity (logMAR)
The baseline characteristics between the groups were compared
using independent t‑test, Chi‑square, or Mann–Whitney U test. Median 0.3 0.18 0.21c
For comparison of median visual acuity over time, we used the Range 0.78 0.78
Wilcoxon Signed‑rank test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically Baseline IOP (mmHg) 13.92±2.07 13.76±2.10 0.782a
significant. The SPSS software (version 11.5, Chicago IL, USA) Baseline visual −28.29±3.12 −27.00±2.05 0.089a
was used for statistical analysis. fields (MD in db)
Statistical test used: aIndependent t‑test, bChi‑square test, cMann–Whitney
Results test. IOP: Intraocular pressure, LogMAR: Logarithm of the minimum angle of
resolution, MD: Mean deviation
In this study, 68 patients with advanced stage glaucoma
were recruited and randomized into Group 1 (receiving oral
VPA) and Group 2 (controls). After attrition, 64 patients were Table 2: Comparison of those who showed
included for analysis, 31 patients in VPA group, and 33 patients objective improvement versus those who did not
(in valproic acid group)
in control group who completed the 12 months follow‑up.
The baseline characteristics of the two groups are compared Objective Improvement No improvement P
in Table 1. improvement (n=11) (n=20)

Visual acuity Age (years) 58.3±13 48.07±20 0.14

The median log of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) Sex (male:female) 10:1 18:2 0.63
best‑corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the VPA group IOP (mmHg) 14.17±1.99 13.57±2.51 0.51
was 0.30  (range 0–0.78) at baseline, improving to 0.18 at VF (MD in dB) −28.58±3.31 −27.86±3.01 0.56
3 months (P < 0.001), and persisting at 12 months (P = 0.0082) with IOP: Intraocular pressure, MD: Mean deviation, VF: Visual field
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, IP: 140.234.253.9]

1106 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Volume 66 Issue 8

4 representing 10°–15° field, and ring 5 representing >15° field. a 2 line visual acuity improvement is generally considered for a
We did not find any significant difference in the multifocal ERG meaningful improvement in such cases of advanced glaucomas.
implicit time or amplitude between the two groups at any of However, the fact that this improvement did not happen in
the follow‑up period. the control group gives credence to our observations that VPA
might be associated with improvement in visual function in a
Blood valproic acid concentration and adverse effects subset of advanced glaucomas. Most studies except for a few on
The average blood VPA concentration measured at 3 months VPA in RP showed greater beneficial effect on visual field and
of therapy was 26 ± 8.9 µg/ml (range 8–55 µg/ml) [Fig. 3]. There less on visual acuity.[9‑10,12,22,23] We did not perform a subjective
was no correlation between the blood VPA concentration assessment, but most patients felt their visual function to be
and the change in logMAR visual acuity seen among subjectively better when on VPA therapy. This phenomenon
our patients (P  =  0.12). No adverse effects that needed has been explained in that, after degeneration has started,
discontinuation of the drug were reported by any patient. Three ganglion cells exhibit hyperactivity, firing spontaneously at
patients had transient elevation of serum glutamic oxaloacetic rates many times greater than normal, and this hyperactivity
transaminase/serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase is reduced by the GABAergic action of VPA; hence, patients
enzymes that subsided after stopping therapy. feel that it was easier to see with reduced visual “noise” from
spontaneous firing of ganglion cells.[10,24]
Discussion
We found the improvement in visual acuity persisted
Almost one‑third of our glaucoma patients on VPA had even 9 months after stopping VPA therapy (legacy effect). In
improvement of 1 line of Snellen visual acuity. While in contrast in RP patients, both the visual acuity and visual field
advanced stages of glaucoma, there is fluctuation of patients’ improvement were seen to reverse following discontinuation
vision not only during the day but also from one day to the of therapy.[10]
other, one may not consider these results as substantial. At least,
We failed to show any improvement in visual field or ERG,
however, probably because most eyes in our study had very
advanced depression of visual field and we only analyzed
the overall mean deviation. Similarly, for ERG, we failed to
demonstrate a significant overall improvement because of
end‑stage loss. Probably, the beneficial effects could be more
pronounced in early to moderate stages of glaucoma where
VPA could be tried as an adjunct to IOP lowering therapy.
VPA has been shown to have neuroprotective effect
in experimental studies. Lasseck et  al. proposed that
VPA  (300  mg/kg) improves the retinal ganglion cell  (RGC)
survival in rats with optic nerve crush injury compared to
controls.[14] The drug acts by decreasing the caspase 3 activity,
induction of CREB, and activation of pERK1/2. Bierman
et al. cultured purified RGCs in histone deacetylase (HDAC)
inhibitors such as sodium butyrate, VPA, trichostatin A, and
concluded that sodium butyrate and VPA increases RGC
survival in culture.[25] They also added that mechanism other
Figure 1: Log of the minimum angle of resolution best‑corrected visual than histone deacetylation is responsible for increased RGC
acuity over time in valproic acid group and controls survival. It has been shown that HDAC activity is induced by

a b
Figure 2: Percentage multifocal electroretinogram change in P1N2 amplitude (a) and implicit time (b) among valproic acid group and controls
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, IP: 140.234.253.9]

Mahalingam, et al.: Valproic acid for Glaucoma

August 2018 1107

assessing visual outcomes among patients treated with VPA.

We would thus recommend an observer masked randomized
study for the future. In addition, patients taking VPA may have
felt better with VPA having a placebo effect or even as a mood
elevator thus giving a better subjective response while visual
acuity assessment was performed. A placebo‑controlled trial
would further reduce this bias. We would also recommend a
larger study with longer follow‑up duration.

Conclusion
We can say that VPA therapy can be beneficial for improving
visual function in a subset of advanced glaucoma patients. Even
if this improvement is considered minimal, it cannot be ignored.
More studies, especially in less severe stages of glaucoma,
would help in further confirmation of the findings of our study.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Grant  WM, Burke JF Jr. Why do some people go blind from
Figure 3: Histogram showing the blood valproic acid concentration glaucoma? Ophthalmology 1982;89:991‑8.
measured 3 months after therapy 2. Kolker AE. Visual prognosis in advanced glaucoma: A comparison
of medical and surgical therapy for retention of vision in 101
raised IOP that is detrimental to RGC and by inhibiting HDAC, eyes with advanced glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc
1977;75:539‑55.
VPA can be neuroprotective.[26]
3. Odberg  T. Visual field prognosis in advanced glaucoma. Acta
In our study, we selected eyes with advanced to end‑stage Ophthalmol 1987;65:27‑9.
glaucoma that had a mean deviation worse than  −24  dB. 4. Hare WA, WoldeMussie E, Lai RK, Ton H, Ruiz G, Chun T, et al.
By the definition of Mills et  al. for glaucoma staging, these Efficacy and safety of memantine treatment for reduction of
would actually be severe glaucomas bordering on end‑stage changes associated with experimental glaucoma in monkey, I:
glaucoma.[27] We used this selection criterion, as these patients Functional measures. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:2625‑39.
are the ideal group in need of neuroprotective therapy for 5. Quigley HA. Use of animal models and techniques in glaucoma
improving their visual function. However, the neuroprotective research: Introduction. Methods Mol Biol 2018;1695:1‑0.
effect may be more significant in the moderate stage of the 6. Ritch R. Potential role for ginkgo biloba extract in the treatment of
disease rather than end‑stage when there is almost complete glaucoma. Med Hypotheses 2000;54:221‑35.
loss of ganglions; hence, the need for a trial in less advanced 7. Sena DF, Lindsley K. Neuroprotection for treatment of glaucoma
stages of glaucoma. in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;28:CD006539.
In our study, the blood concentration of VPA in patients was 8. Zhong Y, Xiang M, Ye W, Cheng Y, Jiang Y. Visual field protective
found much lower than when it is used as an antiepileptic.[28] In effect of erigeron breviscapus  (vant.) hand. mazz. extract on
fact, the average concentration in the blood achieved in studies glaucoma with controlled intraocular pressure: A  randomized,
double‑blind, clinical trial. Drugs R D 2010;10:75‑82.
using the same oral dose for RP was also higher compared to
ours.[10] We could possibly explain this by ethnic differences in 9. Clemson  CM, Tzekov  R, Krebs  M, Checchi  JM, Bigelow  C,
the pharmacokinetics of the drug or possibly poor compliance Kaushal S, et al. Therapeutic potential of valproic acid for retinitis
pigmentosa. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95:89‑93.
among our patients. Iraha et al. also did not find a correlation
to the blood VPA concentration and BCVA change or change in 10. Iraha S, Hirami Y, Ota S, Sunagawa GA, Mandai M, Tanihara H,
the visual field noted in their patients with RP.[10] None of the et al. Efficacy of valproic acid for retinitis pigmentosa patients:
A pilot study. Clin Ophthalmol 2016;10:1375‑84.
patients in our study on VPA therapy experienced any adverse
effects. While color vision, abnormalities are reported with VPA 11. Kumar A, Midha N, Gogia V, Gupta S, Sehra S, Chohan A, et al.
Efficacy of oral valproic acid in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.
for epilepsy adverse effects on other visual functions have not
J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2014;30:580‑6.
been found.[29,30] In a study on visual side effects of VPA therapy
among patients on antiepileptic therapy, Ozkul et  al. found 12. Shanmugam PM, Minija CK, Ramanjulu R, Tekwani P, Saxena M.
Effect of short‑term oral valproic acid on vision and visual field in
no adverse effect on visual acuity, visual field or ERG.[29] The
retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmol Ther 2012;1:6.
patients in the study of Ozkul et al. were on a much higher dose
of VPA for epilepsy and the aim was not to look for beneficial 13. Kimura A, Guo X, Noro T, Harada C, Tanaka K, Namekata K, et al.
Valproic acid prevents retinal degeneration in a murine model of
effects of VPA on visual function but to look for adverse effects.
normal tension glaucoma. Neurosci Lett 2015;588:108‑13.
One of the limitations of our pilot study was that being 14. Lasseck JG, Goebel U, Martin G, Thanos S, Giovanni SD, Lagrèze W.
nonmasked; there could have been observer bias related to Valproic acid‑mediated neuroprotection and neuroregeneration in
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, IP: 140.234.253.9]

1108 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Volume 66 Issue 8

optic nerve injury is associated with CREB‑induction and activation 22. Bhalla S, Joshi D, Bhullar S, Kasuga D, Park Y, Kay CN, et al.
of pERK1/2. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:124. Long‑term follow‑up for efficacy and safety of treatment of retinitis
15. Sinn DI, Kim SJ, Chu K, Jung KH, Lee ST, Song EC, et al. Valproic pigmentosa with valproic acid. Br J Ophthalmol 2013;97:895‑9.
acid‑mediated neuroprotection in intracerebral hemorrhage via 23. Sisk RA. Valproic acid treatment may be harmful in non‑dominant
histone deacetylase inhibition and transcriptional activation. forms of retinitis pigmentosa. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96:1154‑5.
Neurobiol Dis 2007;26:464‑72. 24. Stasheff SF. Emergence of sustained spontaneous hyperactivity
16. Rouaux  C, Panteleeva  I, René F, Gonzalez de Aguilar  JL, and temporary preservation of OFF responses in ganglion
Echaniz‑Laguna  A, Dupuis  L, et al. Sodium valproate exerts cells of the retinal degeneration (rd1) mouse. J Neurophysiol
neuroprotective effects in vivo through CREB‑binding 2008;99:1408‑21.
protein‑dependent mechanisms but does not improve survival 25. Biermann J, Boyle J, Pielen A, Lagrèze WA. Histone deacetylase
in an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis mouse model. J Neurosci inhibitors sodium butyrate and valproic acid delay spontaneous cell
2007;27:5535‑45. death in purified rat retinal ganglion cells. Mol Vis 2011;17:395‑403.
17. Hao Y, Creson T, Zhang L, Li P, Du F, Yuan P, et al. Mood stabilizer 26. Alsarraf O, Fan J, Dahrouj M, Chou CJ, Yates PW, Crosson CE, et al.
valproate promotes ERK pathway‑dependent cortical neuronal Acetylation preserves retinal ganglion cell structure and function
growth and neurogenesis. J Neurosci 2004;24:6590‑9. in a chronic model of ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis
18. Yuan PX, Huang LD, Jiang YM, Gutkind JS, Manji HK, Chen G, Sci 2014;55:7486‑93.
et al. The mood stabilizer valproic acid activates mitogen‑activated 27. Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, Noecker RJ, Walt JG, Siegartel LR,
protein kinases and promotes neurite growth. J Biol Chem et al. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre‑diagnosis to
2001;276:31674‑83. end‑stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:24‑30.
19. Chan HH, Brown B. Pilot study of the multifocal electroretinogram 28. Ruuskanen I, Kilpeläinen HO, Riekkinen PJ. Side effects of sodium
in ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:1147‑53. valproate during long‑term treatment in epilepsy. Acta Neurol
20. Chan  HH, Ng  YF, Chu  PH. Applications of the multifocal Scand 1979;60:125‑8.
electroretinogram in the detection of glaucoma. Clin Exp Optom 29. Ozkul  Y, Gurler  B, Uckardes  A, Bozlar  S. Visual functions in
2011;94:247‑58. epilepsy patients on valproate monotherapy. J Clin Neurosci
21. Rao A, Singh AK, Mukherjee S, Chowdhury M. Comparing focal 2002;9:247‑50.
and global responses on multifocal electroretinogram with retinal 30. Sorri I, Rissanen E, Mäntyjärvi M, Kälviäinen R. Visual function
nerve fibre layer thickness by spectral domain optical coherence in epilepsy patients treated with initial valproate monotherapy.
tomography in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:500‑7. Seizure 2005;14:367‑70.

A stamp from Granada depicting corneal transplantation

From the collection of Dr Samar K Basak, Disha Eye Hospitals, Kolkata, India
Copyright of Indian Journal of Ophthalmology is the property of Wolters Kluwer India Pvt
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.