Aficamten in Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: For >60 years, beta-blockers have been first-line therapy for symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM), although limited data support this recommendation. The MAPLE-HCM trial showed greater improvement in exercise capacity and secondary endpoints for aficamten monotherapy vs metoprolol monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of aficamten vs metoprolol across multiple clinically relevant and patient-centric measures of disease burden in oHCM. METHODS: ); and ≥10% reduction in left atrial volume index. Clinical response was classified by number of efficacy outcomes achieved: nonresponder (none), limited (1 or 2), positive (3 or 4), or complete (all 5). RESULTS: was 19.9 ± 5.1 mL/kg/min, and mean KCCQ-CSS score was 66 ± 16. At 24 weeks, aficamten treatment was associated with greater benefits in all efficacy outcome measures, with numbers needed to treat ranging from 1.5 to 5.0 relative to metoprolol treatment. Patients treated with aficamten were more likely to be either positive or complete responders compared with patients treated with metoprolol (78% vs 3%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic oHCM, aficamten monotherapy led to superior and rapid treatment benefits across several clinically relevant outcome measures of disease burden compared with metoprolol. These observations support the emerging role of aficamten as monotherapy for oHCM. (Phase 3 Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Aficamten Compared to Metoprolol Succinate in Adults With Symptomatic oHCM [MAPLE-HCM]; NCT05767346).
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Aficamten in Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
- Date Crossref
- 01/03/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.