ReviewCureus2025
Steroids Versus Immunomodulators in Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Latest Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Comprehensive Review.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Review
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
Granulomatous inflammation of the heart causes arrhythmias, heart block, and heart failure in cardiac sarcoidosis (CS), a rare but potentially deadly condition. There is increasing interest in using immunomodulators as steroid-sparing medicines, even though corticosteroids are still the usual treatment. This study compared corticosteroids and immunomodulatory treatments through a systematic review and meta-analysis. After a thorough literature search in October 2024, 11 pertinent studies were found. These included observational studies, case series, and randomized controlled trials. Based on changes in myocardial inflammation (SUVmax) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the effectiveness of corticosteroids, methotrexate, infliximab, rituximab, and their combinations was evaluated. The analysis revealed that all treatments significantly reduced myocardial inflammation, with methotrexate showing the highest effect size (d = 1.65, p < 0.001). Infliximab in combination with corticosteroids also demonstrated a significant reduction in SUVmax (d = 1.61, p < 0.001). LVEF improved across all treatment groups, although the effect was modest, with infliximab and corticosteroids showing the most significant increase in LVEF (d = 0.4, p = 0.05). The differences between subgroups were not statistically significant (p = 0.46 for SUVmax, p = 0.36 for LVEF). Corticosteroids remain the standard first-line treatment for CS, while methotrexate has shown the highest effect size for reducing myocardial inflammation, supporting its role as a steroid-sparing agent with fewer long-term side effects. Infliximab is effective but carries risk of infection. These findings highlight the need for customized treatment regimens in the management of CS. This study underscores the urgent need for more research to enhance combination medications, pinpoint patient subgroups that may benefit most from specific therapies, and enhance treatment regimens in the field of CS.
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.