ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2025
Increased Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Inclusion Body Myositis: A Non-Concurrent Cohort Study.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to: "Before Coming to the Conclusion That Inclusion Body Myositis Is a Risk Factor for a Heart Attack, All Influencing Factors Must Be Taken Into Account".European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Before Coming to the Conclusion That Inclusion Body Myositis Is a Risk Factor for a Heart Attack, All Influencing Factors Must Be Taken Into Account.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdiopathic inflammatory myopathies, beyond inclusion body myositis (IBM), have demonstrated an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, particularly myocardial infarction (MI). This study evaluated the risk of cardiovascular disease in IBM.
methodsWe conducted a non-concurrent cohort study utilizing the expanded Rochester Epidemiologic Project, including 50 patients with IBM, matched 1:6 to age-, sex-, and calendar year-matched referents without IBM. Baseline cardiovascular risk factors were recorded. Differences in baseline covariates were adjusted by the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. Participants were followed from the index date forward to determine relative risks (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) for the development of cardiovascular outcomes including MI, ischemic stroke, cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure (CHF), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD).
results50 patients with IBM and 294 matched population referents were included. Baseline cardiovascular risk factors were similar between groups. Aspirin use was more common (28% vs. 18%, p = 0.03) and statin use less common (26% vs. 38%, p = 0.04) in IBM versus referents. Patients with IBM had an increased hazard of MI compared to referents [HR: 5.79, 95% CI (2.51, 13.36)]. The risk of MI remained consistently elevated across all models, after accounting for potential confounders. For PVD, 16/50 IBM patients versus 16/287 referents were excluded due to pre-existing PVD at index (p < 0.001). Among remaining participants, RR for PVD was 2.38 (0.82, 6.9). IBM was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, cardiomyopathy, or CHF.
conclusionsIBM is associated with increased risk of MI compared to population referents. Heightened cardiovascular monitoring and prevention strategies are needed in IBM.
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.