ReviewEuropean journal of clinical investigation2026
Why Circulating Interleukin-6 Is Not Yet a Standalone Clinically Actionable Biomarker in HFrEF: A Context-of-Use Review.
Review in European journal of clinical investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterleukin-6 (IL-6) is frequently measured in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but its clinical utility remains unclear.
objectivesTo assess IL-6 as a biomarker in HFrEF, with emphasis on the effect of treatments (pharmacodynamics) and translation readiness.
methodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through June 2026. Using AI-assisted full-text screening with manual adjudication, eligible studies were classified using BEST classification as prognostic, predictive and/or pharmacodynamic biomarkers.
resultsEighty studies met inclusion criteria (59 pharmacodynamic, 21 prognostic, 3 predictive; categories overlapping). Across prognostic studies, higher IL-6 consistently tracked disease severity and cardiovascular mortality risk, but associations with hospitalization and composite endpoints weakened after adjustment for natriuretic peptides, limiting incremental clinical value. Pharmacodynamic studies showed that several interventions reduce circulating IL-6-most consistently statins and levosimendan-while findings were heterogeneous for exercise, cardiac device, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. However, IL-6 changes did not consistently parallel clinical benefit, arguing against its use as a surrogate measure for outcome improvement. No study supported IL-6 as a predictive biomarker. Assay heterogeneity was substantial, with limited use of in vitro diagnosis-grade assays, representing a major barrier to qualification.
conclusionsIn HFrEF, IL-6 reflects inflammatory burden and may serve as pharmacodynamic readout in mechanistic studies, but it is not supported for treatment selection and adds limited prognostic information beyond natriuretic peptides. Progress towards translational utility requires standardized measurements and, potentially, biomarkers reflecting the IL-6 axis beyond IL-6 alone.
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.