Evidence Hub

The Efficacy of Cardiac Myosin Inhibitors Versus Placebo in Patients With Symptomatic Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Yassen M, Changal K, Busken J, Royfman R, Schodowski E, Venkataramany B, Khouri SJ, Moukarbel GV

The American journal of cardiology, 2024

463 participants

Abstract

We aimed to assess the overall clinical impact of cardiac myosin inhibitors in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). We performed a meta-analysis of published trials assessing the effect of cardiac myosin inhibitors (mavacamten and aficamten) on resting and Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradients and functional capacity in symptomatic HCM. The co-primary outcomes were mean percent change (mean difference [MD]) from baseline in LVOT gradient at rest and Valsalva LVOT gradient and the proportion of patients achieving New York Heart Association class improvement ≥1. The secondary outcomes included the mean percent change from baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, troponin I, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A total of 4 studies (all randomized controlled trials, including 3 mavacamten-focused and 1 aficamten-focused trials) involving 463 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the cardiac myosin inhibitor group demonstrated statistically significant differences in the baseline percent change in mean LVOT gradient at rest (MD -62.48, confidence interval [CI] -65.44 to -59.51, p <0.00001) and Valsalva LVOT gradient (MD -54.21, CI -66.05 to -42.36, p <0.00001) and the proportion of patients achieving New York Heart Association class improvement ≥1 (odds ratio 3.43, CI 1.90 to 6.20, p <0.0001). Regarding the secondary outcomes, the intervention group demonstrated statistically significant reductions in mean…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 463 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free