SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Mavacamten and atrial fibrillation: assessing the risk through FAERS and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMavacamten is a novel selective cardiac myosin inhibitor indicated for patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM). Given its negative inotropic properties, which theoretically reduce myocardial contractility and affect left atrial systolic function, concerns have arisen about its potential association with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). The study aims to assess this potential association.
methodsWe employed a dual approach combining real-world data analysis and evidence synthesis. First, disproportionality and time-to-onset analyses were performed using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) across two models: the general population (Model 1) and an HCM-specific cohort (Model 2). Independent risk factors for AF were identified using logistic regression. Second, a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials was conducted to evaluate the safety profile of mavacamten, with pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) .
resultsIn the disproportionality analysis, Model 1 revealed a signal for AF with mavacamten (adjusted ROR 18.54, 95% CI 11.53–29.80, P < 0.05; EB05 11.55). In contrast, no significant disproportionality signal was observed in Model 2 (aROR 4.28, 95% CI 1.30–14.07, P = 0.017; EB05 0.74). The time-to-onset analysis indicated a random failure type for AF occurrence in mavacamten-treated patients. The meta-analysis included five RCTs and one retrospective cohort study. Compared with placebo, mavacamten was not associated with an increased risk of AF (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.80–1.06, P = 0.12).
conclusionOur findings did not identify a significant association between mavacamten and AF in patients with HCM. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies and small sample sizes.
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.