ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Risk of cardiovascular toxicity with combination of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and angiogenesis inhibitors: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Angiogenesis Inhibitor-Based Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
- Patient characteristics to guide personalized treatment decisions and prognostication in hepatocellular carcinoma.Hepatic oncology · 2026Review
- Mapping the global landscape of research on immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated cardiotoxicity: A quantitative and visualized bibliometric study (2016-2025).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Key immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated toxicities: from molecular mechanisms to clinical management.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Unmasking the Rare but Lethal Cardiac Complications of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: A Review of Mechanisms, Risk Factors, and Management Strategies.Current treatment options in oncology · 2025Review
- New Scenarios in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2025Review
- Balancing anticancer therapy efficacy and safety in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a case report.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) have been investigated for the treatment of several tumor types. Both ICIs and AIs may lead to cardiovascular adverse events, and their combination may potentially increase the risk for cardiovascular toxicity. In the present meta-analysis, we aim to assess the cardiovascular toxicity of ICIs plus AIs vs. AIs alone. Secondary objectives are non-cardiovascular adverse events and efficacy. Methods: Systematic review was performed according to PRISMA statement. Phase II and III randomized clinical trials were identified by searching the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library and ASCO Meeting abstracts, from inception to June 2022. The pooled risks for overall response rate (ORR), 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), immune-related AEs, (irAEs), hypertension, and vascular events defined as stroke, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolisms, were calculated. Results: In terms of cardiovascular toxicity, we found higher risk for severe hypertension among patients treated with ICIs plus AIs as compared with those receiving AIs (OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01-1.53), but no significant difference was found for any-grade hypertension, and for vascular events. There was also no difference in terms of overall AEs, whereas the incidence of irAEs was increased in the ICIs plus AIs arm, as expected. In terms of efficacy, ICIs plus AIs achieved better ORR (OR 2.25, 95% CI: 1.70-2.97) and PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39-0.63) as compared to AIs alone. Conclusion: The addition of ICIs to AIs significantly increased the risk of high-grade hypertension, but not that of acute vascular events.
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.