CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-07-23). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 3 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 1517 · Search date 2026-07-23 · Methodology v0.6

Nicotinamide,
does it really help with Improved retinal ganglion-cell function and short-term visual function in glaucoma during intraocular-pressure-lowering treatment?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 49 · Safety caution
Retinal electrophysiology improved in the short term, but long-term visual-field preservation and blindness prevention remain unproven
What the
research shows
High-dose oral nicotinamide is rated C because it has a short-term retinal-function signal in treated glaucoma. A 2020 crossover randomized trial in 57 participants reported improvement in the electroretinographic photopic negative response and some visual-field measures. A 2026 crossover trial in 53 participants with normal-tension glaucoma also improved electroretinographic amplitudes, but 12-week visual-field mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and visual-field index did not differ from placebo. Phase 3 trials of long-term visual-field loss and blindness prevention remain ongoing, so the surrogate and short-term functional endpoint ceiling applies.
What the
ads claim
Marketing extends NAD metabolism and electroretinographic signals into optic-nerve regeneration, long-term field preservation, and blindness prevention. Completed monotherapy evidence remains limited to small 12-week crossover trials and functional measures.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Nicotinamide is the amide form of vitamin B3 and is chemically distinct from nicotinic acid, the form commonly associated with flushing.
  • Glaucoma trials have generally used 1 to 3 g per day, far above multivitamin amounts, while participants continued established intraocular-pressure-lowering treatment.
  • High doses can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and liver-enzyme elevations, and drug-induced liver injury has been a concern at approximately 3 g per day.
  • Completed short-term trials measured electroretinography and visual fields; they did not establish replacement of pressure-lowering therapy or prevention of blindness.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 1517 · C 49
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

The double-masked crossover trial by Hui and colleagues compared 12 weeks of nicotinamide with placebo in 57 participants receiving glaucoma treatment. The photopic negative-response maximum amplitude improved with nicotinamide, and a signal was observed in the proportion with at least a 1-dB improvement in visual-field mean deviation. The phase 2 trial by De Moraes and colleagues found short-term improvement at visual-field locations in a 42-person nicotinamide-plus-pyruvate study, but the combination prevents attribution to nicotinamide alone. The 2026 crossover trial by Ha and colleagues replicated electroretinographic improvement but found no 12-week difference in visual-field indices. NAMinG and TGNT phase 3 trials of progression do not yet provide completed results.

02

Why this is classified as C (49)

Two small crossover trials observed electroretinographic retinal-function improvement, but short-term visual-field findings are mixed and no long-term field-loss or blindness-prevention result exists. Boundary rule ① for surrogate and short-term functional outcomes yields C with 49 points.

Counterpoint. Repeated electroretinographic improvement supports a biological signal, but a functional surrogate and a patient-important long-term endpoint are not equivalent.

Rejudgment record. New verdict — Accepted electroretinographic improvement in the small 2020 and 2026 crossover trials, but applied the boundary-rule ① ceiling of C because short-term visual-field findings are mixed and phase 3 evidence for long-term field loss or blindness prevention is unavailable

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Improved retinal ganglion-cell functionCTwo small crossover trials observed improvement in the electroretinographic photopic negative response.
Improved short-term visual functionCSelected signals appeared in the 2020 monotherapy and phase 2 combination trials, but visual-field indices were null in the 2026 monotherapy trial.
Prevention of long-term visual-field loss?No completed long-term phase 3 result is available.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Hui F et al. 2020Double-masked randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial57Academic and public-interest support including the Australian NHMRC and eye-research foundationsElectroretinographic photopic negative response and visual-field testingPhotopic negative-response maximum amplitude improved and selected mean-deviation responses showed a signal, but outcomes were short-term surrogates over 12 weeks.Pivotal short-term monotherapy trial
Ha A et al. 2026Double-masked randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial53Academic support including the Korea Health Technology research programElectroretinographic photopic negative response, B-wave, and 12-week visual-field indicesThe photopic negative response and B-wave improved, but mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and visual-field index did not differ significantly from placebo.Replication for electroretinography with null visual-field indices
De Moraes CG et al. 2022Phase 2 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial32Academic and foundation support; combination supplementationShort-term improvement at visual-field test locationsThe nicotinamide-plus-pyruvate group improved selected short-term field measures, but mean deviation was not significant and the nicotinamide-only effect cannot be isolated.Supportive combination evidence with attribution limits
§

Receipt — 3 References

All 3 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-23).

Hui F, John SWM, Williams PA, et al. Improvement in inner retinal function in glaucoma with nicotinamide (vitamin B3) supplementation: a crossover randomized clinical trial. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;48(7):903-914. PMID: 32721104. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.13818.
checked
Ha A, Kim YK, Lee CK, et al. Effects of nicotinamide supplementation in normal-tension glaucoma: a crossover placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2026;110(4):417-424. PMID: 41167798. DOI: 10.1136/bjo-2025-328096.
checked
De Moraes CG, John SWM, Williams PA, et al. Nicotinamide and pyruvate for neuroenhancement in open-angle glaucoma: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022;140(1):11-18. PMID: 34792559. PMCID: PMC8603231. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2021.4576.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-23 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Nicotinamide x improved retinal ganglion-cell and short-term visual function in glaucoma Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Nicotinamide x improved retinal ganglion-cell and short-term visual function in glaucoma — Evidence Grade C·49. 3 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/eye/nicotinamide-glaucoma-retinal-ganglion-cell-visual-function/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.