Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This review aims to systematically review the available evidence on neuroprotective agents for optic neuritis, evaluating their effectiveness and safety.</p> Methods <p>This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. To collect the studies, we searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE in May 2023. A pre-established protocol of the systemic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, ID Number: (CRD42023448479).</p> Results <p>Regarding the global loss of RNFL, a statistical significance was observed in favor of erythropoietin compared to placebo (MD = − 5.40, 95%CI, − 7.27–− 3.53). The overall difference in VEP latency recovery was insignificant (MD = − 0.63, 95%CI, − 5.95–4.69). The distinctness in visual acuity measured in logMAR in the memantine group was significant (MD = − 0.25, 95%CI, − 0.33–− 0.16). Two of the included studies had no major adverse events, however, the likelihood of major adverse events was significant overall in the other studies (RR = 2.28, 95%CI, 1.16 to 4.47). The erythropoietin group had 12 cases of major adverse events with a RR = 2.35.</p> Conclusion <p>Evaluating neuroprotective agents for ON produced mixed findings. Although erythropoietin was effective in reducing the thinning of RNFL, it did not lead to improved visual acuity results. On the other hand, our analysis found that memantine significantly improved VA compared to placebo. Notably, the experimental groups had more frequent adverse events, particularly with erythropoietin. Thus, caution is advised when contemplating the use of these agents.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring the efficacy and safety of neuroprotective agents in optic neuritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月19日

查看全文
  • Abdulrahman Hameed Alsubhi,
  • Mohammed Khalid Althagafi,
  • Latifah Alhamed,
  • Rahaf Ali Alothman,
  • Abdulrahman Ali Ahmed Alothman,
  • Abdullah Saeed Alghorair,
  • Shahad Abdullah Alruwaili,
  • Nooran Badeeb

摘要

Purpose

This review aims to systematically review the available evidence on neuroprotective agents for optic neuritis, evaluating their effectiveness and safety.

Methods

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. To collect the studies, we searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE in May 2023. A pre-established protocol of the systemic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, ID Number: (CRD42023448479).

Results

Regarding the global loss of RNFL, a statistical significance was observed in favor of erythropoietin compared to placebo (MD = − 5.40, 95%CI, − 7.27–− 3.53). The overall difference in VEP latency recovery was insignificant (MD = − 0.63, 95%CI, − 5.95–4.69). The distinctness in visual acuity measured in logMAR in the memantine group was significant (MD = − 0.25, 95%CI, − 0.33–− 0.16). Two of the included studies had no major adverse events, however, the likelihood of major adverse events was significant overall in the other studies (RR = 2.28, 95%CI, 1.16 to 4.47). The erythropoietin group had 12 cases of major adverse events with a RR = 2.35.

Conclusion

Evaluating neuroprotective agents for ON produced mixed findings. Although erythropoietin was effective in reducing the thinning of RNFL, it did not lead to improved visual acuity results. On the other hand, our analysis found that memantine significantly improved VA compared to placebo. Notably, the experimental groups had more frequent adverse events, particularly with erythropoietin. Thus, caution is advised when contemplating the use of these agents.