Disease × agent evidence record

Norepinephrine for Glaucoma: evidence, trials and status

Norepinephrine has both completed registered trials and synthesis-level publications linked to Glaucoma. That is the strongest profile in this database, but the summaries here do not extract effect sizes, so read the linked reviews for direction and magnitude of benefit.

2 registered trials 0 recruiting 7 publications Evidence tier A · Strong Score 42.0
Research Tracker › Pairs › Glaucoma › Norepinephrine
Research map, not treatment advice. This page aggregates registry and literature records. It does not evaluate efficacy, dosing or safety for any individual. Discuss any treatment decision with a qualified clinician.

Summary

Norepinephrine has reached the approved stage (maximum clinical phase 4) for at least one indication, so its use in Glaucoma would be drug repurposing rather than first-in-human development. This does not mean it is approved for Glaucoma. ClinicalTrials.gov lists 2 registered trials linking Norepinephrine to Glaucoma: 2 have completed. None of the registered studies carries a drug-development phase label, which is typical for behavioural, device and supplement protocols. It plans or enrolled 174 participants. Registration activity spans 2017 to 2021. The literature layer holds 7 publications for this pair: 1 meta-analysis, 1 systematic review and 5 clinical trial publications. Publication years run from 1991 to 2021. Because at least one synthesis-level source exists (systematic review, meta-analysis or Cochrane review), this pair has been assessed beyond single studies, although the synthesis may concern a different indication.

The RepurpOS disease-intelligence file for Glaucoma ranks 339 candidate therapeutics from Open Targets, ChEMBL, DGIdb and PubMed; only a minority carry direct clinical evidence, and this page covers one of those. Spontaneous remission context recorded for the condition: Progressive optic nerve damage without treatment; average visual field loss 0.5-1.0 dB/year; blindness in 10-20% without treatment; no spontaneous recovery of lost vision.

Evidence table

Evidence tierA · Strong
Evidence score42.0 (trials 5.0, literature 17.0, tier 15, approved bonus 5.0)
Registered trials2 total: 0 recruiting, 0 active / not yet recruiting, 2 completed, 0 other
Linked publications7 (5 clinical trial publications, 1 meta-analysis, 1 systematic review)
Agent typeDrug (Small molecule)
Development stage (any indication)Approved
Mechanism / classagonist
Data sourcesDGIdb
Linked via biomarker / targetADRA2C
How the evidence score is calculated
  • Each registered trial scores by status (recruiting / active / enrolling 3, completed 2.5, not yet recruiting 2, unknown 1, terminated / withdrawn / suspended 0.5) plus a phase bonus (phase 3-4 +2, phase 2 +1, phase 1 +0.5). The trial component is capped at 30.
  • Each literature item scores by design (Cochrane review 5, meta-analysis 4, systematic review 3, RCT 3, clinical trial publication 2, curated reference 1.5, other PubMed record 1). The literature component is capped at 30.
  • The existing evidence tier adds 15 (A / Strong), 10 (B / Moderate), 5 (C / Preliminary) or 0 (D / Anecdotal).
  • Agents approved for any indication (max clinical phase 4) add 5, because an approved agent has an established safety profile that lowers the barrier to repurposing trials.
  • The score ranks what has been studied, not what works. It does not read effect sizes or directions of effect.

Registered clinical trials

NCT IDTitleStatusPhaseEnrolment
NCT07567651Citicoline and Filtration Surgery
2021
completedNot applicable6
NCT03094910Investigation of the Rewarming og the Fingers After Cooling and the Autonomic Nervous System in Raynaud's Phenomenon
2017
completedNot applicable174

Search ClinicalTrials.gov for newer studies

Published literature

Run the live PubMed search

Mechanism and notes

Recorded mechanism or class: agonist.

OSMF's existing evidence tier for this pair is A (Strong), derived from the strength of the disease association recorded in DGIdb, in this case via the biomarker or target ADRA2C. The tier describes how well the drug-disease link is documented, not how well the drug works.

Frequently asked questions

Is Norepinephrine approved for Glaucoma?

Norepinephrine has reached the approved stage (maximum clinical phase 4) for at least one indication, so its use in Glaucoma would be drug repurposing rather than first-in-human development. This does not mean it is approved for Glaucoma. Approval status for the specific indication should always be confirmed with the relevant regulator and prescribing information.

Is Norepinephrine in clinical trials for Glaucoma?

ClinicalTrials.gov lists 2 registered trials linking Norepinephrine to Glaucoma: 2 have completed. None of the registered studies carries a drug-development phase label, which is typical for behavioural, device and supplement protocols. It plans or enrolled 174 participants. Registration activity spans 2017 to 2021.

What does the evidence show for Norepinephrine in Glaucoma?

Norepinephrine has both completed registered trials and synthesis-level publications linked to Glaucoma. That is the strongest profile in this database, but the summaries here do not extract effect sizes, so read the linked reviews for direction and magnitude of benefit. OSMF's existing evidence tier for this pair is A (Strong), derived from the strength of the disease association recorded in DGIdb, in this case via the biomarker or target ADRA2C. The tier describes how well the drug-disease link is documented, not how well the drug works.

Cite this page

Open Source Medicine Foundation. Norepinephrine for Glaucoma: evidence, trials and status. OSMF Research Tracker. Updated 2026-07-05. https://research.opensourcemed.info/pairs/glaucoma/norepinephrine.html

Data: ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Open Targets, ChEMBL, DGIdb and the OSMF therapeutic agent database. Last updated 2026-07-05. Page built 2026-10-07.

Get OSMF research updates on Substack

This is a research map, not treatment advice. Evidence tiers and scores summarise what has been studied, not whether a treatment works or is safe for you.