CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 114

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long-term effect of mavacamten in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Garcia-Pavia, Pablo, Oręziak, Artur, Masri, Ahmad, Barriales-Villa, Roberto, Abraham, Theodore P, Owens, Anjali T, Jensen, Morten K, Wojakowski, Wojciech, Seidler, Tim, Hagege, Albert, Lakdawala, Neal K, Wang, Andrew, Wheeler, Matthew T, Choudhury, Lubna, Balaratnam, Ganesh, Shah, Ashish, Fox, Shawna, Hegde, Sheila M, Olivotto, Iacopo·2024·European Heart Journal
DOI 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae579PMC PMC11646600
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background and Aims: Long-term safety and efficacy of mavacamten in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) are unknown. MAVA-LTE (NCT03723655) is an ongoing, 5-year, open-label extension study designed to evaluate the long-term effects of mavacamten. Methods: Participants from EXPLORER-HCM (NCT03470545) could enrol in MAVA-LTE upon study completion. Results: At the latest data cut-off, 211 (91.3%) of the 231 patients originally enrolled in MAVA-LTE still received mavacamten. Median (range) time on study was 166.1 (6.0–228.1) weeks; 185 (80.1%) and 99 (42.9%) patients had completed the Week 156 and 180 visits, respectively. Sustained reductions from baseline to Week 180 occurred in left ventricular outflow tract gradients [mean (standard deviation): resting, −40.3 (32.7) mmHg; Valsalva, −55.3 (33.7) mmHg], N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide [median (interquartile range): −562 (−1162.5, −209) ng/L], and EQ-5D-5L score [mean (standard deviation): 0.09 (0.17)]. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decreased from 73.9% (baseline) to 66.6% (Week 24) and 63.9% (Week 180). At Week 180, 74 (77.9%) of the 95 patients improved by at least one New York Heart Association class from baseline. Over 739 patient-years exposure, 20 patients (8.7%; exposure-adjusted incidence: 2.77/100 patient-years) experienced 22 transient reductions in LVEF to <50% resulting in temporary treatment interruption (all recovered LVEF of ≥50%). Five (2.2%) patients died (all considered unrelated to mavacamten). Conclusions: Long-term mavacamten treatment resulted in sustained improvements in cardiac function and symptoms in patients with obstructive HCM, with no new safety concerns identified. Transient, reversible reductions in LVEF were observed in a small proportion of patients during long-term follow-up.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae579

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Structured Graphical Abstract
Structured Graphical Abstract CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 1 Mean (standard deviation) resting left ventricular outflow tract (A) and Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract (B) gradients over time. Baseline values represent those from the beginning of MAVA-LTE, not the beginning of EXPLORER-HCM. For re-enrolled patients, the baseline value is considered the first measurement following re-enrolment. The number of patients at each time point reflects the number of evaluable results from those who had reached the stated week by the interim cut-off date. BL, baseline; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; LTE, Long-Term Extension; LVOT, left ventricular outflow tract
Figure 1 Mean (standard deviation) resting left ventricular outflow tract (A) and Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract (B) gradients over time. Baseline values represent those from the beginning of MAVA-LTE, not the beginning of EXPLORER-HCM. For re-enrolled patients, the baseline value is considered the first measurement following re-enrolment. The number of patients at each time point reflects the number of evaluable results from those who had reached the stated week by the interim cut-off date. BL, baseline; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; LTE, Long-Term Extension; LVOT, left ventricular outflow tractCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Proportion of patients who achieved a Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract gradient of ≤30 mmHg by visit. The values above the bars indicate the n (%) of patients who achieved a Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract gradient of ≤30 mmHg at each time point
Figure 2 Proportion of patients who achieved a Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract gradient of ≤30 mmHg by visit. The values above the bars indicate the n (%) of patients who achieved a Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract gradient of ≤30 mmHg at each time pointCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Median (interquartile range) N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide over time. Baseline values represent those from the beginning of MAVA-LTE, not the beginning of EXPLORER-HCM. For re-enrolled patients, the baseline value is considered the first measurement following re-enrolment. The number of patients at each time point reflects the number of evaluable results from those who had reached the stated week by the interim cut-off date. BL, baseline; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; LTE, Long-Term Extension; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide
Figure 3 Median (interquartile range) N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide over time. Baseline values represent those from the beginning of MAVA-LTE, not the beginning of EXPLORER-HCM. For re-enrolled patients, the baseline value is considered the first measurement following re-enrolment. The number of patients at each time point reflects the number of evaluable results from those who had reached the stated week by the interim cut-off date. BL, baseline; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; LTE, Long-Term Extension; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptideCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4 New York Heart Association class distribution over time (A) and change in New York Heart Association class from baseline (B). The number of patients at each time point refers to the number of patients who had a visit scheduled at each week and for whom data are available. NYHA, New York Heart Association
Figure 4 New York Heart Association class distribution over time (A) and change in New York Heart Association class from baseline (B). The number of patients at each time point refers to the number of patients who had a visit scheduled at each week and for whom data are available. NYHA, New York Heart AssociationCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Mean (standard deviation) Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath domain score over time. The number of patients at each time point refers to the number of patients who had a visit scheduled at each week and for whom data are available. Lower scores indicate less shortness of breath. When the mean value minus the standard deviation value was <0, the lower error bar was set to 0. BL, baseline; HCMSQ SoB, Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath
Figure 5 Mean (standard deviation) Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath domain score over time. The number of patients at each time point refers to the number of patients who had a visit scheduled at each week and for whom data are available. Lower scores indicate less shortness of breath. When the mean value minus the standard deviation value was <0, the lower error bar was set to 0. BL, baseline; HCMSQ SoB, Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of BreathCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Mean (standard deviation) left ventricular ejection fraction over time. Baseline values represent those from the beginning of MAVA-LTE, not the beginning of EXPLORER-HCM. For re-enrolled patients, the baseline value is considered the first measurement following re-enrolment. The number of patients at each time point reflects the number of evaluable quantitative results from those who had reached the stated week by the interim cut-off date. Some central-read LVEF measurements were qualitative and, therefore, did not contribute to the overall mean LVEF value for the study visit. BL, baseline; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; LTE, Long-Term Extension; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction
Figure 6 Mean (standard deviation) left ventricular ejection fraction over time. Baseline values represent those from the beginning of MAVA-LTE, not the beginning of EXPLORER-HCM. For re-enrolled patients, the baseline value is considered the first measurement following re-enrolment. The number of patients at each time point reflects the number of evaluable quantitative results from those who had reached the stated week by the interim cut-off date. Some central-read LVEF measurements were qualitative and, therefore, did not contribute to the overall mean LVEF value for the study visit. BL, baseline; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; LTE, Long-Term Extension; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fractionCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Change in mavacamten dose by study visit. The number of patients at each time point refers to the number of patients who had a study visit scheduled at each week and for whom data are available. Categories relate to the change in mavacamten dose from the previous visit. For Week 24, the previous visit was Week 16
Figure 7 Change in mavacamten dose by study visit. The number of patients at each time point refers to the number of patients who had a study visit scheduled at each week and for whom data are available. Categories relate to the change in mavacamten dose from the previous visit. For Week 24, the previous visit was Week 16CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Event-free rate of occurrences of left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, and treatment-emergent adverse events of cardiac failure over time. For patients with <56 days between enrolment periods, events contribute based on initial dosing (left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% analyses). LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction
Figure 8 Event-free rate of occurrences of left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, and treatment-emergent adverse events of cardiac failure over time. For patients with <56 days between enrolment periods, events contribute based on initial dosing (left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% analyses). LVEF, left ventricular ejection fractionCC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Alamo, 2017, Effects of myosin variants on interacting-heads motif explain distinct hypertrophic and dilated cardiomyopathy phenotypes, eLife, 6, e24634, 10.7554/eLife.24634 · DOI
  2. Arbelo, 2023, 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies: developed by the task force on the management of cardiomyopathies of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Eur Heart J, 44, 3503, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Garfinkel, 2018, Genetic pathogenesis of hypertrophic and dilated cardiomyopathy, Heart Fail Clin, 14, 139, 10.1016/j.hfc.2017.12.004 · DOI
  4. Ommen, 2024, 2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR guideline for the management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice guidelines, J Am Coll Cardiol, 83, 2324, 10.1016/j.jacc.2024.02.014 · DOI
  5. Schultze, 2022, Population estimates of obstructive and non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the UK and Germany, Eur Heart J, 43, ehac544.1747, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.1747 · DOI
  6. Maron, 2006, Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is predominantly a disease of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, Circulation, 114, 2232, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.644682 · DOI
  7. Zaiser, 2020, Patient experiences with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a conceptual model of symptoms and impacts on quality of life, J Patient Rep Outcomes, 4, 102, 10.1186/s41687-020-00269-8 · DOI
  8. Olivotto, 2020, Mavacamten for treatment of symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (EXPLORER-HCM): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, Lancet, 396, 759, 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31792-X · DOI · Paper page
  9. Rader, 2024, Mavacamten treatment for symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: interim results from the MAVA-LTE study, EXPLORER-LTE cohort, JACC Heart Fail, 12, 164, 10.1016/j.jchf.2023.09.028 · DOI
  10. Ho, 2020, Study design and rationale of EXPLORER-HCM: evaluation of mavacamten in adults with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Circ Heart Fail, 13, e006853, 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.006853 · DOI
  11. Reaney, 2022, Development of the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy symptom questionnaire (HCMSQ): a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument, Pharmacoecon Open, 6, 563, 10.1007/s41669-022-00335-5 · DOI
  12. Siontis, 2014, Atrial fibrillation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: prevalence, clinical correlations, and mortality in a large high-risk population, J Am Heart Assoc, 3, e001002, 10.1161/JAHA.114.001002 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Filippatos, 2023, Empagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with and without atrial fibrillation, Eur J Heart Fail, 25, 970, 10.1002/ejhf.2861 · DOI
  14. Dybro, 2021, Randomized trial of metoprolol in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, J Am Coll Cardiol, 78, 2505, 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.07.065 · DOI
  15. Welsh, 2022, Reference ranges for NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and risk factors for higher NT-proBNP concentrations in a large general population cohort, Circ Heart Fail, 15, e009427, 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.121.009427 · DOI
  16. Grillo, 2019, In vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic characterization of mavacamten, a first-in-class small molecule allosteric modulator of beta cardiac myosin, Xenobiotica, 49, 718, 10.1080/00498254.2018.1495856 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Garcia-Pavia, P., Oręziak, A., Masri, A., Barriales-Villa, R., Abraham, T. P., Owens, A. T., Jensen, M. K., Wojakowski, W., Seidler, T., Hagege, A., Lakdawala, N. K., Wang, A., Wheeler, M. T., Choudhury, L., Balaratnam, G., Shah, A., Fox, S., Hegde, S. M., & Olivotto, I.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2024-09-01
Volume
45
Issue
47
Pages
5071-5083
ISSN
  • 0195-668X
  • 1522-9645
DOI
10.1093/eurheartj/ehae579
PMC
PMC11646600
Cited by
114
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Bristol Myers Squibb

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review