Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973703›Full record

Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2023

Efficacy and safety of 0.05% micellar nano-particulate (MNP) cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion in the treatment of moderate-to-severe keratoconjunctivitis sicca: a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, active-controlled trial.

A Tarakeswara Rao, Amit Gupta, Tulika Chauhan, Sayan Basu, Nitin Batra, Namrata Sharma, Virender S Sangwan, Vinay Gupta, Shoibal Mukherjee

Open access · goldFull text readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Diagnostic methods for managing dry eyes.World journal of methodology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

A Tarakeswara RaoRajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences and RIMS Government Hospital, Srikakulam, 532001, India.
Amit GuptaPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 120012, India.
Tulika ChauhanCentre for Sight Eye Institute, New Delhi, 110075, India.
Sayan BasuLV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, 500034, India.
Nitin BatraChristian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, 141008, India.
Namrata SharmaAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Virender S SangwanDr Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital, New Delhi, 110002, India.
Vinay GuptaJSS Medical Research Asia Pacific, Faridabad, 121003, India.
Shoibal MukherjeeNew India Biopharma, New Delhi, 110065, India. shoibalmukherjee@yahoo.co.in.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INCentre for Sight · INChristian Medical College, Vellore · INDr. Shroff’s Charity Eye Hospital · INInstitute of Medical Sciences · INJSS Medical Research (India) · INL V Prasad Eye Institute · INPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INYahoo (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

SGN Nanopharma Inc., 3720 Spectrum Blvd., Suites 125 B&C, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Not Applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKeratoconjunctivitis sicca or dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disorder underpinned by a complex inflammatory cycle. Introduction of topical cyclosporine has been a significant advance in the management of DED. In recent years advancements in formulation technology have led to development of micellar nano-particulate (MNP) cyclosporine formulations that promise better penetration into ocular target tissues and potential for reduced ocular surface irritation.

methodsWe compared two dosing regimes of a proprietary MNP cyclosporine emulsion with the widely marketed topical cyclosporine formulation Restasis™ in a multicenter parallel-group randomised trial in patients with DED. Patients were randomised to one of 3 treatment groups with 90 patients eligible for the per protocol analysis: 30 in the higher dose test arm A; 32 in the lower dose test arm B; and 28 in the Restasis™ control arm C. All scored efficacy endpoints were tested for significance by comparing the mean change in scores from baseline in the test groups with that in the control group at 12 weeks, using the Student's t test. Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to test individual symptom scores and clinician's global evaluation of treatment grades.

resultsCorneal fluorescein staining score, the primary efficacy endpoint, decreased by 6.8 ± 4.0, 5.7 ± 3.9, and 4.6 ± 3.6 points in the 3 groups respectively, indicating superior efficacy in test arm A in comparison to control arm C (p = 0.0026). Schirmer's tear test, conjunctival lissamine staining score, ocular surface disease index, and individual dry eye symptom scores also favoured higher dose MNP cyclosporine over Restasis™. The study failed to differentiate the treatment arms in terms of clinician's global evaluation of treatment, use of tear substitutes, best corrected visual acuity or safety and toleration.

conclusionThe results indicate that the dose of 1 drop of a 0.05% w/v ophthalmic emulsion of MNP cyclosporine administered topically twice daily yields better outcomes at 12 weeks than the lower dose tested in the study, and is more efficacious than an equivalent dose of Restasis™, the active control used in the study.

trial registrationThis trial was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of India on 29/03/2019, and was assigned registration number CTRI/2019/03/018319.

Indexed as

Dry Eye SyndromesKeratoconjunctivitis SiccaCyclosporineDouble-Blind MethodEmulsionsHumansMicellesOphthalmic SolutionsTearsTreatment OutcomeCyclosporineEmulsionsMicellesOphthalmic SolutionsCorneal fluorescein stainingCyclosporineDry eye diseaseKeratoconjunctivitis siccaMicellar nanoparticle

Identifiers

PMID36973703
PMCPMC10041473
OpenAlexW4361006107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read79
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.