Evidence Hub

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Mavacamten in Chinese Patients With Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Week 78 Results From the EXPLORER-CN Study

Tian Z, Li X, Li L, Zhang Q, Wang J, Shi Y, Peng D, Ma W et al.

Journal of the American Heart Association, 2026

54 participants

Abstract

Background: Long-term efficacy and safety of mavacamten in Chinese patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are unknown.

Methods: Patients who completed the 30-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period in EXPLORER-CN (A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Mavacamten in Chinese Adults With Symptomatic Obstructive HCM), with no active safety concerns, were eligible to enter the long-term extension period to receive 48-week mavacamten treatment. Patients previously on mavacamten continued mavacamten (dose at week 30; mavacamten-mavacamten group); patients previously on placebo received mavacamten (starting dose, 2.5 mg once daily; placebo-mavacamten group). Key efficacy end points included change from baseline in echocardiographic measures, New York Heart Association functional class, 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score, and cardiac biomarkers through week 78. Analyses were descriptive; no between-group hypothesis testing was performed.

Results: Seventy-nine patients (mean age, 51.6 years; 27.8% women) entered the long-term extension period (mavacamten-mavacamten, n=54; placebo-mavacamten, n=25). In the mavacamten-mavacamten group, numerical improvements in Valsalva and resting left ventricular outflow tract peak gradients were maintained through week 78 (mean change from baseline, -73.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -86.4 to -59.5]; and -56.3 mm Hg [95% CI, -67.1 to -45.5], respectively). Numerical improvements were also…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 54 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