ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Theory and Practice of Glucocorticoids in COVID-19: Getting to the Heart of the Matter-A Critical Review and Viewpoints.
Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the associations between immunosuppressant use and COVID-19 severity in patients with autoimmune hepatitis.World journal of hepatology · 2026Article
- Glucocorticoid-Mediated Extracellular Matrix Regulation: Implications for Precision Therapy.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Tocilizumab in COVID-19: A Double-Edged Sword?Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Impact of diabetes on COVID-19 and glucocorticoids on patients with COVID-19 and diabetes during the Omicron variant epidemic: a multicenter retrospective cohort study in South China.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Oscillometry Longitudinal Data on COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Syndrome Treated with Non-Invasive Respiratory Support.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prolonged, low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) have shown the highest efficacy among pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for COVID-19. Despite the World Health Organization's recommendation against their use at the beginning of the pandemic, GCs at a dose equivalent to dexamethasone 6 mg/day for 10 days are now indicated in all COVID-19 cases who require respiratory support. However, the efficacy of the intervention depends on the timing of initiation, the dose, and other individual factors. Indeed, patients treated with similar GC protocols often experience different outcomes, which do not always correlate with the presence of comorbidities or with the severity of respiratory involvement at baseline. This prompted us to critically review the literature on the rationale, pharmacological principles, and clinical evidence that should guide GC treatment. Based on these data, the best treatment protocol probably involves an initial bolus dose to saturate the glucocorticoid receptors, followed by a continuous infusion to maintain constant plasma levels, and eventually a slow tapering to interruption. Methylprednisolone has shown the highest efficacy among different GC molecules, most likely thanks to its higher ability to penetrate the lung. Decreased tissue sensitivity to glucocorticoids is thought to be the main mechanism accounting for the lower response to the treatment in some individuals. We do not have a readily available test to identify GC resistance; therefore, to address inter-individual variability, future research should aim at investigating clinical, physiological, and laboratory markers to guide a personalized GC treatment approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.