Disease × agent evidence record

Cyclosporine for Glaucoma: evidence, trials and status

Cyclosporine 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.

3 registered trials 0 recruiting 9 publications Evidence tier A · Strong Score 54.5
Research Tracker › Pairs › Glaucoma › Cyclosporine
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

Cyclosporine 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 3 registered trials linking Cyclosporine to Glaucoma: 3 have completed. The most advanced is Phase 2 (NCT02114073). The largest enrolment is 43 participants (NCT00405431). Registration activity spans 2004 to 2018. The literature layer holds 9 publications for this pair: 2 Cochrane reviews, 2 systematic reviews and 5 clinical trial publications. Publication years run from 2003 to 2026. 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 score54.5 (trials 8.5, literature 26.0, tier 15, approved bonus 5.0)
Registered trials3 total: 0 recruiting, 0 active / not yet recruiting, 3 completed, 0 other
Linked publications9 (5 clinical trial publications, 2 Cochrane reviews, 2 systematic reviews)
Agent typeDrug (Small molecule)
Development stage (any indication)Approved
Mechanism / classNot recorded
Data sourcesDGIdb
Linked via biomarker / targetABCA1
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
NCT02114073Comparison of Effect of Postoperative Cyclosporine A 2% Ophthalmic Emulsion and Betamethasone Eye Drop on Surgical Success of Trabeculectomy Procedure
2014
completedPhase 240
NCT04673604From Preserved, to Preservative-free Cyclosporine 0.1% Enhanced Triple Glaucoma Therapy
2018
completedNot applicable42
NCT00405431Will Restasis Eye Drops Increase Your Chance of Having a Successful Surgery?
2004
completedNot applicable43

Search ClinicalTrials.gov for newer studies

Published literature

Run the live PubMed search

Mechanism and notes

No mechanism of action is recorded for this pair in the source databases.

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 ABCA1. The tier describes how well the drug-disease link is documented, not how well the drug works.

Frequently asked questions

Is Cyclosporine approved for Glaucoma?

Cyclosporine 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 Cyclosporine in clinical trials for Glaucoma?

ClinicalTrials.gov lists 3 registered trials linking Cyclosporine to Glaucoma: 3 have completed. The most advanced is Phase 2 (NCT02114073). The largest enrolment is 43 participants (NCT00405431). Registration activity spans 2004 to 2018.

What does the evidence show for Cyclosporine in Glaucoma?

Cyclosporine 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 ABCA1. The tier describes how well the drug-disease link is documented, not how well the drug works.

Cite this page

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