Trial reportKorean journal of ophthalmology : KJO2019
Efficacy of Topical Cyclosporine Nanoemulsion 0.05% Compared with Topical Cyclosporine Emulsion 0.05% and Diquafosol 3% in Dry Eye.
Trial report in Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence on the Use of Topical Ciclosporin for Ocular Surface Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of seven cyclosporine A formulations for dry eye disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of cyclosporine nanoemulsion eye drops in patients with mild-to-moderate dry eyes: objective and subjective evaluation.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of 0.05% Cyclosporine A and 3% Diquafosol Sodium in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Predictive Factors of Suboptimal Response to Topical 0.1% Cyclosporine A Cationic Emulsion in Pediatric Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis: A Real-World Retrospective Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Nanomedicines for Dry Eye Syndrome: Targeting Oxidative Stress with Modern Nanomaterial Strategies.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluation of curcumin-based ophthalmic nano-emulsion on atropine-induced dry eye in mice.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Management of inflammation in dry eye disease: Recommendations from a European panel of experts.European journal of ophthalmology · 2023Review
- Recent achievements in nano-based technologies for ocular disease diagnosis and treatment, review and update.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- Meibomian gland atrophy with duration of Sjogren's syndrome in adult females.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Clinical efficacy of 0.05% cyclosporine nano-emulsion in the treatment of dry eye syndrome associated with meibomian gland dysfunction.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Topical cyclosporine a (0.05%) treatment in dry eye patients: a comparison study of Sjogren's syndrome versus non-Sjogren's syndrome.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine nanoemulsion 0.05% compared to cyclosporine emulsion 0.05% and diquafosol sodium 3%.
methodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, evaluator-masked, active control, parallel, phase IV study. A total of 227 patients were randomly allocated to instill cyclosporine nanoemulsion 0.05% (CN) twice daily, cyclosporine emulsion 0.05% (CE) twice daily, or diquafosol sodium 3% (DQ) six times daily. Non-inferiority of CN was analyzed by primary endpoint (cornea and conjunctival staining scores at week 12). The secondary endpoints were scores of corneal staining, conjunctival staining, tear break-up time, Schirmer test, and Ocular Surface Disease Index at weeks 4 and 12.
resultsPrimary endpoints showed statistically significant improvements in all groups. Primary endpoints were -6.60 for the CN group, -5.28 for the CE group, and -6.63 for the DQ group (National Eye Institute scale from 0 to 33), verifying the non-inferiority of CN compared to CE (95% confidence interval, -0.15 to 2.80, Δ>-2.88). In intergroup comparison between CN and CE groups, the CN group had significantly more decreased conjunctival staining score at week 12. Intergroup comparison between CN and DQ groups showed consistent statistically significant improvements in TBUT and Schirmer test in the CN group. In the DQ group, TBUT showed late statistically significant improvement at week 12 and Schirmer test showed relatively short-term statistically significant improvement at week 4.
conclusionsCyclosporine nanoemulsion 0.05% was equivalently efficient compared to cyclosporine emulsion 0.05% and diquafosol sodium 3%. In addition, CN showed significant improvements in several parameters for treatment of dry eyes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.