Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38635724›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of mavacamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on qualitative assessment, biomarkers, and cardiac imaging.

Rahul Vyas, Viraj Panchal, Shubhika Jain, Manush Sondhi, Mansunderbir Singh, Keerthish Jaisingh, Sahith Reddy Thotamgari, Anuj Thakre, Kalgi Modi

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Myosin inhibitors for treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Rahul VyasDepartment of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0005-4306-632X
Viraj PanchalDepartment of Medicine, Smt. NHL Municipal Medical College and SVPISMR, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1689-9714
Shubhika JainDepartment of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Manush SondhiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America.
Mansunderbir SinghDepartment of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America.
Keerthish JaisinghDepartment of Cardiology, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America.
Sahith Reddy ThotamgariDepartment of Cardiology, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America.
Anuj ThakreDepartment of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America.
Kalgi ModiDepartment of Cardiology, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America.
Louisiana State University in Shreveport · USKasturba Medical College, Manipal · INSmt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex cardiac condition characterized by hypercontractility of cardiac muscle leading to a dynamic obstruction of left ventricular outlet tract (LVOT). Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, is increasingly being studied in randomized controlled trials. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety profile of Mavacamten compared to placebo in patients of HCM.

methodWe carried out a comprehensive search in PubMed, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov to analyze the efficacy and safety of mavacamten compared to placebo from 2010 to 2023. To calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI), the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effect was used and Generic Inverse Variance method assessed pooled mean difference value at a 95% CI. RevMan was used for analysis. P<0.05 was considered significant.

resultsWe analyzed five phase 3 RCTs including 609 patients to compare mavacamten with a placebo. New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade improvement and KCCQ score showed the odds ratio as 4.94 and 7.93 with p<0.00001 at random effect, respectively. Cardiac imaging which included LAVI, LVOT at rest, LVOT post valsalva, LVOT post-exercise, and reduction in LVEF showed the pooled mean differences for change as -5.29, -49.72, -57.45, -36.11, and -3.00 respectively. Changes in LVEDV and LVMI were not statistically significant. The pooled mean difference for change in NT-proBNP and Cardiac troponin-I showed 0.20 and 0.57 with p<0.00001. The efficacy was evaluated in 1) A composite score, which was defined as either 1·5 mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one NYHA class reduction, or a 3·0 mL/kg per min or greater pVO2 increase without NYHA class worsening and 2) changes in pVO2, which was not statistically significant. Similarly, any treatment-associated emergent adverse effects (TEAE), treatment-associated serious adverse effects (TSAE), and cardiac-related adverse effects were not statistically significant.

conclusionMavacamten influences diverse facets of HCM comprehensively. Notably, our study delved into the drug's impact on the heart's structural and functional aspects, providing insights that complement prior findings. Further large-scale trials are needed to evaluate the safety profile of Mavacamten.

Indexed as

Cardiomyopathy, HypertrophicBenzylaminesBiomarkersHeartHumansUracilBenzylaminesBiomarkersMYK-461Uracil

Identifiers

PMID38635724
PMCPMC11025865
OpenAlexW4394933402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.