Evidence mapPaperPMID 39589436Full record

ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2024

IL-6 and Cardiovascular Risk: A Narrative Review.

Nehal N Mehta, Emil deGoma, Michael D Shapiro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nehal N MehtaThe George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4939-5130
Emil deGomaTourmaline Bio, Inc, New York, NY, USA. edegoma@tourmalinebio.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9439-6912
Michael D ShapiroWake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9071-3287

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe objective of this narrative review is to summarize data from recently published prospective observational studies that analyze the association between circulating interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels and cardiovascular clinical or imaging endpoints. RECENT

findingsHigher levels of IL-6 are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral artery disease, and heart failure. Imaging studies have also shown an association between IL-6 and carotid intima-media thickness progression, carotid plaque progression, severity, and vulnerability. These observations have been consistent across a wide range of study populations and after adjusting for traditional and emerging risk factors including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. Robust epidemiologic evidence supports IL-6 as a central mediator of cardiovascular risk along with human genetic studies and mechanistic experiments. Ongoing clinical studies are testing the therapeutic hypothesis of IL-6 inhibition in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or heart failure.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesInterleukin-6BiomarkersCarotid Intima-Media ThicknessHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansRisk FactorsBiomarkersInterleukin-6AtherosclerosisCardiovascular outcomesHs-CRPInflammationInterleukin-6Risk prediction

Identifiers

PMID39589436
PMCPMC11599326

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.