ArticleCardiology and therapy2026
Real-World Effectiveness of Mavacamten in Canada: Insights from the MAVEN Study.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrevious studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of mavacamten in patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM), primarily outside of Canada, with limited Canadian real-world data evidence. The MAVEN study aimed to describe the real-world effectiveness of mavacamten in Canadian patients with oHCM.
methodsThis multi-center, retrospective physician survey of patient charts included 115 patients with oHCM who initiated mavacamten between January 2023 and November 2024 across five Canadian sites. Effectiveness was assessed by changes in clinical characteristics and outcomes, including New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, resting and Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract (rLVOT and vLVOT, respectively) gradients, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), from treatment initiation to the most recent available assessment.
resultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics were consistent with previously published data (median age 63.0 years; 66.1% aged ≥ 60 years; 51.3% male, 48.7% female patients; 57.4% NYHA class II, 42.6% NYHA class III). Median baseline rLVOT and vLVOT gradients were 44.0 and 78.0 mmHg, respectively, and median LVEF was 65.0%. Overall, 72.7% of patients improved by ≥ 1 NYHA functional class. Median reductions in rLVOT and vLVOT gradients were - 25.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: - 61, - 8) mmHg and - 51.0 (IQR: - 83, - 24) mmHg, respectively, while median LVEF changed by - 3.0% (IQR: - 8, 0). Mavacamten was discontinued in 8.7% of patients, including 2.6% due to treatment-emergent adverse events. Reductions in LVEF < 50% were observed in 6.1% of patients, and no patient experienced an LVEF < 30%.
conclusionsIn this first Canadian real-world study of mavacamten effectiveness, treatment was associated with improvements in symptoms and LVOT obstruction. Reductions in LVEF < 50% were observed in a minority of patients, with no cases of LVEF < 30%. Given the retrospective design and heterogeneous follow-up of this study, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Graphical abstract available for this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911542What 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.