Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2022
Cyclosporine A (0.05%) Ophthalmic Gel in the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Masked, Phase III, COSMO Trial.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of therapeutic effects of 0.05% Cyclosporine A versus 0.1% Fluorometholone in Chinese patients with mild dry eye unresponsive to artificial tears: a randomized control study.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards dry eye disease treatment among patients: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, and Neurostimulatory Nasal Sprays for Moderate-to-Severe Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Reproxalap 0.25% Ophthalmic Solution in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Advanced and interpretable corneal staining assessment through fine grained knowledge distillation.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy of 0.1% cyclosporine A in dry eye patients with inadequate responses to 0.05% cyclosporine A: a switching, prospective, open-label, multicenter study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Ocular Surface Allostasis-When Homeostasis Is Lost: Challenging Coping Potential, Stress Tolerance, and Resilience.Biomolecules · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To confirm the efficacy and safety of a novel ophthalmic cyclosporine A gel (CyclAGel, 0.05% CsA) in treating patients with moderate-to-severe dry eye disease (DED). Patients and Methods: The COSMO trial was a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, phase III trial. Patients with moderate-to-severe DED were enrolled in 37 hospitals in China between November 2020 and April 2021. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive CyclAGel 0.05% or vehicle eye drops once nightly (QD). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with at least a 1-point improvement in ICSS at day 84. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded. Results: The full analysis set (FAS) included 315 and 312 participants in the CyclAGel and vehicle groups, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved. The proportion of subjects with at least a 1-point improvement in ICSS from baseline to day 84 was significantly higher in the CyclAGel group than in the vehicle group (73.7% [232/315] vs 53.2% [166/312], P<0.0001). Significant improvements relative to the vehicle were also observed in the ICSS and Oxford scale scoring of corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining at day 14, 42, and 84. The Schirmer tear test results were significantly higher in the CyclAGel group than in the vehicle group on days 14 and 84 (all P<0.05). The CyclAGel 0.05% was well tolerated, and the TEAEs were mostly mild. The most frequent treatment-related TEAE was eye pain (6.9% vs 1.6% in the CyclAGel and vehicle groups, respectively). No serious treatment-related TEAEs were reported. Conclusion: Clinically and statistically significant improvements in ICSS, tear production, and symptoms were observed in participants administered CyclAGel 0.05% QD for moderate-to-severe DED. CyclAGel 0.05% QD is a new effective, safe, and well-tolerated therapeutic option that might bring additional benefits of convenience and compliance as a once-A-day treatment for DED.
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.