ArticleThe Journal of general physiology2025
Comparative mechanistic analysis of danicamtiv and omecamtiv mecarbil's in vivo cardiac effects.
Article in The Journal of general physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Danicamtiv increases cardiac mechanical efficiency.The Journal of physiology · 2025Article
- Danicamtiv reduces myosin's working stroke but activates the thin filament by accelerating actomyosin attachment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Danicamtiv is a second-generation myotropic sarcomere activator currently in clinical trials for treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Initial clinical and preclinical studies suggest that danicamtiv improves upon the major shortcoming of the first-generation myotropic sarcomere activator, omecamtiv mecarbil (OM), which overly impaired diastolic function. However, no study has directly compared the in vivo cardiac effects of danicamtiv and OM to verify these claims. These direct comparisons are essential to understand the potential benefits of one drug over the other. Therefore, this study employed carefully controlled experiments with left ventricular pressure-volume loop and echocardiographic strain analysis to compare how danicamtiv and OM alter each phase of the cardiac cycle. Our results show that for similar increases in left ventricular stroke volume, danicamtiv reduced diastolic performance and myocardial relaxation less than OM. However, danicamtiv still significantly decreased diastolic function at higher doses, like OM. Furthermore, danicamtiv and OM elicited a qualitatively similar triphasic dose-response from the left ventricle. These similarities between danicamtiv and OM in the whole heart were surprising given recent evidence showing significant differences in the drugs' molecular effects on myosin mechanics. We therefore conclude that danicamtiv likely has a wider therapeutic window than OM, but may be limited by the same trade-off between systolic and diastolic performance, driven by similar underlying mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.