Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to: ‘Correspondence on ‘Historically controlled comparison of glucocorticoids with or without tocilizumab versus supportive care only in patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome: results of the CHIC study’’ by Charles
  1. Josef S Smolen
  1. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria
  1. Correspondence to Professor Josef S Smolen, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Wien 1090, Austria; josef.smolen.ard{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In his correspondence, Charles challenged the appropriateness of publishing the COVID High-intensity Immunosuppression in Cytokine storm syndrome (CHIC) study in ARD.1 2 I am always grateful for our readers’ critical assessments of papers published in ARD, since this allows the authors to address further questions of interest and thus provide additional clarification. Ramiro et al have done so in their response to Charles’ critique.3

Regarding the decision to publish the paper, I can assure Charles that all research papers in ARD undergo a full peer-review process. In this case, the paper was reviewed by three top experts in the field who all regarded it as an important contribution and recommended publication after revision. …

View Full Text


  • Handling editor Iain McInnes

  • Contributors JSS is the sole author.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests Editor, ARD.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles