Cardiac Myosin Inhibitors in Adults with Symptomatic Non-Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Cardiac myosin inhibitors (CMIs) directly target sarcomeric hypercontractility and have demonstrated clinical efficacy in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). In symptomatic nonobstructive HCM (nHCM), the phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) differed in whether their primary efficacy endpoints reached statistical significance, although the direction and magnitude of treatment effects were broadly comparable. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the randomized evidence on the efficacy and safety of CMIs in symptomatic nHCM. Methods: We systematically searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating CMIs in adults with symptomatic nHCM according to PRISMA guidance and a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD420261466576). Primary efficacy outcomes were changes from baseline in peak oxygen uptake (pVO2) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS), assessed at each trial's primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included improvement by at least 1 New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The safety outcome was LVEF <50%. Random-effects models were used to pool mean differences (MDs), risk ratios (RRs), and ratios of geometric mean changes. Results: Three RCTs comprising 1,156 participants were included: MAVERICK-HCM, ODYSSEY-HCM, and ACACIA-HCM. Compared with placebo, CMIs were associated with improvements in pVO2 (MD, 0.55 mL/kg/min; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; I2=0%; P=0.001) and KCCQ-CSS (MD, 2.71 points; 95% CI, 0.87-4.55; I2=0%; P=0.004). Improvement by at least 1 NYHA functional class was more frequent with CMIs (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.62; I2=24.3%; P=0.024). Across the two phase 3 trials, CMIs reduced NT-proBNP (ratio of geometric mean changes, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.39-0.46; I2=0%; P<0.001), while LVEF <50% occurred more frequently with CMIs (RR, 12.77; 95% CI, 5.98-27.27; I2=0%; P<0.001). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis of randomized trials in symptomatic nHCM, CMIs' pooled estimates favoured CMIs over placebo for improvements in exercise capacity, health status, and NYHA functional class, together with a marked reduction in NT-proBNP. These potential benefits were accompanied by an increased risk of LVEF reduction below 50%.

Article activity feed