Does mavacamten improve cardiopulmonary exercise testing parameters in patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
Mavacamten provides broad and consistent benefits on both maximal and submaximal exercise capacity beyond peak oxygen consumption in patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Importance: Mavacamten, a cardiac myosin inhibitor, improved peak oxygen uptake (pVO2) in patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) in the EXPLORER-HCM study. However, the full extent of mavacamten's effects on exercise performance remains unclear. Objective: To investigate the effect of mavacamten on exercise physiology using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analyses of the data from the EXPLORER-HCM study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that was conducted in 68 cardiovascular centers in 13 countries. In total, 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM were enrolled. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to mavacamten or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The following prespecified exploratory cardiovascular and performance parameters were assessed with a standardized treadmill or bicycle ergometer test protocol at baseline and week 30: carbon dioxide output (VCO2), minute ventilation (VE), peak VE/VCO2 ratio, ventilatory efficiency (VE/VCO2 slope), peak respiratory exchange ratio (RER), peak circulatory power, ventilatory power, ventilatory threshold, peak metabolic equivalents (METs), peak exercise time, partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (PETCO2), and VO2/workload slope. Results: Two hundred fifty-one patients were enrolled. The mean (SD) age was 58.5 (11.9) years and 59% of patients were male. There were significant improvements with mavacamten vs placebo in the following peak-exercise CPET parameters: peak VE/VCO2 ratio (least squares LS mean difference, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.05 to -1.26; P < .001), peak METs (LS mean difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.17-0.60; P < .001), peak circulatory power (LS mean difference, 372.9 mL/kg/min × mm Hg; 95% CI, 153.12-592.61; P = .001), and peak PETCO2 (LS mean difference, 2.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, 1.12-2.79; P < .001). Mavacamten also improved peak exercise time compared with placebo (LS mean difference, 0.7 minutes; 95% CI, 0.13-1.24; P = .02). There was a significant improvement in nonpeak-exercise CPET parameters, such as VE/VCO2 slope (LS mean difference, -2.6; 95% CI, -3.58 to -1.52; P < .001) and ventilatory power (LS mean difference, 0.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90; P < .001) favoring mavacamten vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Mavacamten improved a range of CPET parameters beyond pVO2, indicating consistent and broad benefits on maximal exercise capacity. Although improvements in peak-exercise CPET parameters are clinically meaningful, the favorable effects of mavacamten on submaximal exertional tolerance provide further insights into the beneficial impact of mavacamten in patients with obstructive HCM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470545.
“A number of clinically meaningful cardiopulmonary exercising testing parameters consistently improved with mavacamten, and these benefits correlated with improvement in a biomarker of cardiac wall stress. Nevertheless, it seems that symptomatic improvement indicated by the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score is more striking than that seen with cardiopulmonary exercising testing, suggesting that the pathophysiology of symptoms is not wholly captured by this testing. Thus, the benefits of mavacamten seem to extend beyond improvement in cardiopulmonary exercising testing parameters and fully understanding this represents an unmet need, and may help unravel further the pathophysiology of this complex disease.”
Wheeler et al. (Wed,) studied this question.