ABSTRACT
Glaucoma, a chronic neurodegenerative disease of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs), is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Its management currently focuses on lowering intraocular pressure to slow disease progression. However, disease-modifying, neuroprotective treatments for glaucoma remain a major unmet need. Recently, senescent cells have been observed in glaucomatous eyes, exposing a potential pathway for alternative glaucoma therapies. Prior studies demonstrated that targeting senescent RGCs for removal (i.e., a senolytic approach) protected healthy RGCs and preserved visual function in a mouse ocular hypertension model. However, the effects of senolytic drugs on vision in human patients are unknown. Here, we used existing clinical data to conduct a retrospective cohort study in 28 human glaucoma patients who had been exposed to senolytics. Senolytic exposure was not associated with decreased visual acuity, elevated intraocular pressure, or documentation of senolytic-related adverse ocular effects by treating ophthalmologists. Additionally, patients exposed to senolytics (n=9) did not exhibit faster progression of glaucomatous visual field damage compared to matched glaucoma patients (n=26) without senolytic exposure. These results suggest that senolytic drugs do not carry significant ocular toxicity and provide further support for additional evaluation of the potential neuroprotective effects of senolytics on glaucoma and other neurodegenerative diseases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (T15LM011271, P30EY022589, EY027011, EY11008, EY19869, EY14267, EY027510, EY026574, EY027945, EY029058) and by RPB Unrestricted Grant to Shiley Eye Institute. Work in the DSK laboratory was additionally supported by RPB Special Scholar Award and Glaucoma Research Foundation Shaffer Award.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the UCSD Institutional Review Board (IRB) and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Waiver of informed consent was also granted by the UCSD IRB.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript came from patients medical charts and secure healthcare software (EPIC). The processed data is saved in a secure university drive with protected password.
Abbreviations list
- EHR
- Electronic Health Record
- LogMAR
- Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution
- MD
- Mean Deviation
- PO
- By Mouth
- QD
- Everyday
- RGC
- Retinal Ganglion Cell
- SD
- Standard Deviation
