Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Is mavacamten superior to aficamten for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? A frequentist network meta-analysis
View through CrossRef
Background: Myosin inhibitors have been shown to improve exercise capacity and symptoms, as well as reduce the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient. This study explores the efficacy of mavacamten versus aficamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients. Methods: From the inception to October 2024, the electronic databases [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov] were searched. Using a random-effects model and a frequentist framework, specific effect sizes [mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR)] were pooled. Results: This network meta-analysis included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of 826 individuals with HCM were included; 443 of them received a cardiac myosin inhibitor, while 383 received placebo. Comparison of aficamten versus mavacamten through a common comparator, placebo, showed that aficamten caused a lesser decrease in resting LVOT gradient than that of mavacamten [MD = 14.74, 95% CI (3.02; 26.47)]. Therefore, mavacamten ranked higher (P-score = 0.9966) than aficamten (P-score = 0.5034) in decreasing resting LVOT gradient. Aficamten significantly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in contrast to mavacamten [MD = –5.59, 95% CI (–10.43; –0.75)]. According to P-score ranking, mavacamten (0.5053) ranked higher than aficamten (0.0059). For New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups [MD = –0.37, 95% CI (–1.79; 1.06)]. But P-score ranked mavacamten (0.8466) higher than aficamten (0.6533). Discussion: Mavacamten ranked superior to aficamten in HCM management. However, this ranking is based not on the absolute clinical benefit but on the network point estimates. Additionally, due to a larger body of clinical evidence supporting mavacamten, it has a clear advantage in terms of reliability. Therefore, more direct trials comparing the two drugs would be required to confirm which one is better and provide conclusive evidence.
Title: Is mavacamten superior to aficamten for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? A frequentist network meta-analysis
Description:
Background: Myosin inhibitors have been shown to improve exercise capacity and symptoms, as well as reduce the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient.
This study explores the efficacy of mavacamten versus aficamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients.
Methods: From the inception to October 2024, the electronic databases [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.
gov] were searched.
Using a random-effects model and a frequentist framework, specific effect sizes [mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR)] were pooled.
Results: This network meta-analysis included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
A total of 826 individuals with HCM were included; 443 of them received a cardiac myosin inhibitor, while 383 received placebo.
Comparison of aficamten versus mavacamten through a common comparator, placebo, showed that aficamten caused a lesser decrease in resting LVOT gradient than that of mavacamten [MD = 14.
74, 95% CI (3.
02; 26.
47)].
Therefore, mavacamten ranked higher (P-score = 0.
9966) than aficamten (P-score = 0.
5034) in decreasing resting LVOT gradient.
Aficamten significantly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in contrast to mavacamten [MD = –5.
59, 95% CI (–10.
43; –0.
75)].
According to P-score ranking, mavacamten (0.
5053) ranked higher than aficamten (0.
0059).
For New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups [MD = –0.
37, 95% CI (–1.
79; 1.
06)].
But P-score ranked mavacamten (0.
8466) higher than aficamten (0.
6533).
Discussion: Mavacamten ranked superior to aficamten in HCM management.
However, this ranking is based not on the absolute clinical benefit but on the network point estimates.
Additionally, due to a larger body of clinical evidence supporting mavacamten, it has a clear advantage in terms of reliability.
Therefore, more direct trials comparing the two drugs would be required to confirm which one is better and provide conclusive evidence.
Related Results
Abstract 4144404: Efficacy of Mavacamten on Echocardiographic Parameters and Cardiac Biomarkers in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract 4144404: Efficacy of Mavacamten on Echocardiographic Parameters and Cardiac Biomarkers in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Introduction:
Mavacamten, a cardiac myosin inhibitor, distinguishes from other pharmacological interventions by addressing not only symptomatic treatment but also targe...
Comparative Analysis of the Coronary Arteries Flow Pattern in Secondary Myocardial Hypertrophies and by Sarcomeric Mutation
Comparative Analysis of the Coronary Arteries Flow Pattern in Secondary Myocardial Hypertrophies and by Sarcomeric Mutation
Background: Coronary flow with a diastolic predominance increases two to five times in hyperemia, mediated by vasodilation (coronary flow reserve, CFR) and, in hypertrophy, relativ...
A summary of results from SEQUOIA-HCM: a clinical study of aficamten for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
A summary of results from SEQUOIA-HCM: a clinical study of aficamten for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
This video explains key findings from the SEQUOIA-HCM trial, which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. SEQUOIA-HCM focuses on obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyop...
Efficacy of cardiac myosin inhibitors mavacamten and aficamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Efficacy of cardiac myosin inhibitors mavacamten and aficamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Background
Unlike other suggested therapies, myosin inhibitors have been shown to change the course of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by altering the contractile mec...
Mavacamten: A First-in-class Oral Modulator of Cardiac Myosin for the Treatment of Symptomatic Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy
Mavacamten: A First-in-class Oral Modulator of Cardiac Myosin for the Treatment of Symptomatic Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is the most common monogenic cardiovascular disease that is caused by sarcomeric protein gene mutations. A hallmark of the most common form of the disea...
Mavacamten maintenance dose determination: insights into individualised therapy for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Mavacamten maintenance dose determination: insights into individualised therapy for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Aims
Mavacamten, the first approved myosin inhibitor for symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM), addresses hypercontractility and left ventric...
Differentiation of Cardiac Amyloidosis and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Differentiation of Cardiac Amyloidosis and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
ABSTRACT. Eriksson P, Backman C, Eriksson A, Eriksson S, Karp K, Olofsson B‐O (Departments of Internal Medicine, Geriatric Medicine, and Clinical Physiology, University Hospital, ...
Extended Myectomy for Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Case Report
Extended Myectomy for Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Case Report
Abstract
BackgroundApical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a variant of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy that predominantly affects the left ventricle apex and rarely involves the...

