CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-07-23). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 4 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 1207 · Search date 2026-07-23 · Methodology v0.6

Nicotinamide,
does it really help with High-dose supplementation to slow long-term visual-field loss in open-angle or normal-tension glaucoma?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 45 · Safety caution
Unlike other nicotinamide verdicts, this entry evaluates the distinct indication of long-term visual-field preservation in glaucoma.
What the
research shows
Long-term visual-field preservation has not been demonstrated. Two short crossover trials enrolling 53 to 57 participants found small improvements in retinal electrophysiology, but global standard visual-field indices did not improve significantly and long-term phase 3 results are not yet available.
What the
ads claim
Claims that vitamin B3 protects the optic nerve and stops glaucoma progression extrapolate animal and mechanistic evidence plus short-term surrogate signals into unproven long-term visual-field preservation.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Nicotinamide is the amide form of vitamin B3, but the glaucoma trial doses of 1 to 3 g daily are far above ordinary nutritional supplementation.
  • Participants continued established intraocular-pressure-lowering treatment, so nicotinamide did not replace standard glaucoma therapy.
  • The published small trials used 12-week crossover designs and were not designed to establish long-term prevention of visual-field loss.
  • Nicotinamide is not approved to treat glaucoma, and gram-level dosing warrants clinician review of liver risk.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 1207 · C 45
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

A 57-participant crossover RCT in open-angle glaucoma and a 53-participant crossover RCT in normal-tension glaucoma found improvements in selected electroretinographic measures such as the photopic negative response. Both lasted 12 weeks, used no washout period, and found no significant between-group benefit in global visual-field indices such as mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, or visual-field index. The phase 3 NAMinG trial of long-term visual-field mean deviation has not reported results.

02

Why this is classified as C (45)

Repeated PhNR and B-wave signals in the small double-masked Hui and Ha crossover RCTs support C rather than D. The no-washout crossover designs, short-term surrogate endpoints, null MD, PSD, and VFI measures, and unavailable phase 3 results limit the verdict to C with 45 points.

Counterpoint. The grade could rise if the ongoing large long-term trial reproduces preservation of visual-field mean deviation. If electrophysiologic changes fail to translate into slower visual-field progression, the clinical importance of the current signal would fall.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — The grade is C because small double-masked RCTs produced positive surrogate electroretinographic signals, while standard visual-field outcomes and long-term progression remain unconfirmed.

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
Slowing long-term visual-field lossCShort-term electrophysiologic signals are positive, but no reported result directly establishes slower long-term visual-field progression.
Short-term improvement in retinal electrophysiologic functionCTwo small crossover RCTs found improvement in selected measures such as the photopic negative response.
Improvement in global standard automated-perimetry indicesDAcross the two nicotinamide-only trials, global between-group differences in mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and visual-field index were not significant.

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
Study 1Double-masked randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial; 12 weeks per treatment sequence with no washout49Supported by the Ophthalmic Research Institute of Australia and charitable foundations; no industry funding was reportedPhotopic negative-response amplitude and parameters, plus standard automated-perimetry mean deviationThe electroretinographic maximum-amplitude difference was 1.35 µV (95% CI 0.159 to 2.551; p=0.027), while the overall between-group visual-field mean-deviation difference was null at 0.10 dB (95% CI -0.328 to 0.533; p=0.633).A credible positive small signal on a short-term surrogate, not direct evidence of long-term visual-field preservation.
Study 2Double-masked randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial; 12 weeks per condition with no washout53Funded by Hanlim Pharm; the article reported no funder role in design, analysis, or writingPhotopic negative response and B-wave amplitudes; visual-field mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and visual-field indexChanges in photopic negative-response peak-to-trough and B-wave amplitude favored nicotinamide (p=0.045 and p=0.032), but mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and visual-field index showed no significant between-group differences.Replicates an electrophysiologic signal in another population, but is short, industry-funded, and null on clinical visual-field indices.
Study 3Randomized masked placebo-controlled long-term clinical trial496Led by University College London and the NIHRChange in visual-field mean deviation at 27 monthsNo long-term efficacy results were posted as of 2026-07-23.Directly addresses long-term visual-field preservation, but pending results cannot support efficacy.
Study 4Professional-society evidence review and safety position statementProfessional-society statementState of glaucoma evidence and hepatotoxicity of high-dose nicotinamideLong-term glaucoma efficacy was not established, and doses of 3 g/day or more were advised against outside clinical trials.Not efficacy confirmation, but supports the current clinical uncertainty and high-dose safety boundary.
§

Receipt — 4 References

All 4 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-23).

Hui F, Tang J, 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
Shukla AG, Cioffi GA, John SWM, Wang Q, Liebmann JM; American Glaucoma Society and American Academy of Ophthalmology. American Glaucoma Society-American Academy of Ophthalmology Position Statement on Nicotinamide Use for Glaucoma Neuroprotection. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2025;8(2):112-116. PMID:39800263. DOI:10.1016/j.ogla.2025.01.002.
checked
University College London. Nicotinamide in Glaucoma (NAMinG), phase 3 randomized trial. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05405868. PMID:none. DOI:none.
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

Does nicotinamide slow visual-field loss in glaucoma? Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Does nicotinamide slow visual-field loss in glaucoma? — Evidence Grade C·45. 4 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/eye/nicotinamide-glaucoma-visual-field-progression/ · 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.