Trial reportScientific reports2026
Effectiveness and safety of cyclosporine A in moderate to severe COVID-19: a randomized, open-label trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 severity is strongly associated with hyperinflammation. Cyclosporine A (CSA), an interleukin-2 inhibitor with immunomodulatory and antiviral activity, has been proposed as a potential adjunctive therapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of CSA in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. We conducted A randomized, open-label phase III trial was conducted involving 66 patients with COVID-19. Participants were assigned to one of two groups: the CSA group (n = 23), receiving 6 mg/kg/day for 7-14 days, and a standard treatment group (n = 43). Clinical improvement (WHO ordinal scale) was the main goal, with C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, interleukin-6 ( IL-6), and D-dimer, and safety monitoring for 28 days as secondary outcomes significant differences in enrolment. The time to clinical improvement was significantly shorter in the CSA group (4.3 ± 1.0 vs. 5.1 ± 2.3 days; p = 0.025). Oxygen supplementation was used in 7 patients (30.43%) versus 12 patients (27.91%) in the standard group, with a p-value of 0.828. No significant differences occurred in the WHO ordinal scale, advanced respiratory support, or mortality. No secondary infections occurred. CSA improved oxygen saturation and reduced CRP and IL-6; differences in saturation at day 14 were not significant. D-dimer and ferritin levels were lower at day 14, with no differences observed at day 7. Cyclosporine did not significantly improve ordinal scale outcomes. However, it was associated with a shorter time to clinical improvement and favorable modulation of inflammatory markers in patients with COVID-19 and cytokine storm, without major safety concerns.
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.