ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Immune checkpoint inhibitors and myocardial infarction.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Avoidance of cardiac toxicity during the application of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a safety systematic review combining network meta-analysis and pharmacovigilance study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Thrombosis in patients with cancer: challenges and advances.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Article
- Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Implications for Cardiovascular Risk Prevention.Nutrients · 2025Observational
- Potential New Applications of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Across the Continuum of Cancer-Related Cardiovascular Toxicity.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The role of the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint pathway in myocardial infarction: a review from pathophysiological mechanisms to therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer therapy since their first approval in 2011. By unleashing the adaptive immune system, non-cardiac and cardiac immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common and often pose a challenge to multidisciplinary teams treating cancer patients. A significant body of literature reports accelerated atherosclerosis - a key precursor of acute vascular events (AVEs) - with currently approved ICIs (CTLA-4, PD-1, LAG-3, and PD-L1 inhibitors), and some preclinical research also suggests increased thrombogenicity. A large meta-analysis has reported an increased incidence of AVEs, including myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke with ICIs. In addition, dyslipidemia secondary to ICI use may lead to an increase in cardiovascular (CV) events in long-term cancer survivors. Currently, there are no specific guidelines for the treatment of MI or CV risk in cancer patients with ICIs. Overall survival (≥ 6 months), thrombogenic, and bleeding risk are key determinants in choosing the appropriate acute approach and antithrombotic therapy, while other principles of MI management do not differ between cancer and non-cancer patients. Future avenues of research include lipid-lowering therapies, including PCSK9 inhibitors and statins, which may offer dual beneficial effects by improving anti-cancer efficacy and reducing CV risk. In addition, newer immune checkpoint targets may provide atheroprotection while being effective against certain cancers (e.g., CD47). Given the tremendous potential of ICIs, intensive research is warranted to reduce CV risk and the incidence of AVE, including MI, in active cancer patients and survivors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40064838What 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.