ArticleCardio-oncology (London, England)2025
Comparison of the diagnostic and prognostic value of criteria for immune checkpoint inhibitor related myocarditis.
Article in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Troponin for surveillance of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis and post-therapy cardiovascular risk stratification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Electrocardiographic changes in immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated cardiac injury: a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- How should immune checkpoint inhibitor myocarditis be treated?Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyocarditis is a dreaded complication of immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy but challenging to diagnose. There are no published data comparing the two leading diagnostic criteria for ICI-related myocarditis (ICIrM) and their association with cardiovascular events.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed all patients who underwent ICI therapy and had cardiac troponin assessment for possible myocarditis across three tertiary institutions from 2011 to 2022. ICIrM was adjudicated by the Bonaca et al. criteria and the ESC-ICOS guidelines. A propensity matched control group was identified of patients treated with ICI without developing myocarditis. Baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes, including cardiac death, MACE (myocardial infarction, TIA/stroke, heart failure), and arrhythmias data were curated, and patients diagnosed with ICIrM by each criteria were compared to controls for cardiovascular events.
resultsA total of 59 patients (mean age was 73.1 ± 10.2 years, 60.1% male) were identified as having a diagnosis of ICIrM by Bonaca criteria (16 definite, 13 probable and 30 possible myocarditis). Forty-seven of these patients met the ESC-ICOS guidelines criteria, and all patients meeting either set of ICIrM criteria were treated with steroid therapy. At 3-year follow up, patients diagnosed with ICIrM by the Bonaca criteria had a high risk of cardiac mortality (HR 17.84, 95%CI 2.36-134.62, p = 0.005), MACE (HR 4.90, 95%CI 2.40-10.02, p < 0.001) and arrhythmias (HR 3.33, 95%CI 1.78-6.21, p < 0.001) when compared to matched controls. ICIrM by ESC-ICOS criteria was similarly predictive of cardiac mortality, MACE, and arrhythmias (HR 15.01, 95%CI 1.96-114.76, p = 0.009, HR 5.18, 95%CI 2.33-11.53, p < 0.001, and HR 3.41, 95%CI 1.73-6.70, p < 0.001 respectively).
conclusionThe ESC-ICOS guidelines were more restrictive than the Bonaca et al. criteria for the diagnosis of ICIrM but similar in terms of prognostic value.
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.