Abstract 4139196: Long-term effectiveness and safety of mavacamten in a real-world, multi-center, global study: Preliminary results of COLLIGO-HCM from a diverse cohort in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The mavaCamten ObservationaL evIdence Global cOnsortium in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (COLLIGO-HCM; ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT06372457) is a multinational, multicenter observational research initiative aiming to describe the real-world outcomes of mavacamten for the treatment of obstructive HCM. Aims: Describe the real-world effectiveness and safety of mavacamten, measured by echo measurements and NYHA class. Methods: This retrospective study used data from medical records from two participating HCM centers in the US. Patient-level data was extracted to assess the effectiveness and safety of mavacamten post-treatment initiation through 60 weeks. Patient characteristics and outcomes were described, including echocardiogram measurements, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and safety. Results: A total of 93 patients were treated with mavacamten (mean age 60.6 ± 13.9 years, 23.7% black, 57.0% female, and 77.4% NYHA class III at baseline) with a mean follow-up of 37.0 ± 28.1 weeks ( Table ). From baseline to week 60, 3 (3.2%) patients experienced temporary treatment discontinuation, and 3 (3.2%) discontinued mavacamten due to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. By week 12, 77.1% of patients had improved by ≥1 NYHA class. The percentage increased to 89.5% by week 24 and remained stable through week 60. Mean changes from baseline in resting and Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract gradients were 31.8 ± 32.8 and 57.3 ± 47.3 mmHg, respectively, at week 24, and remained similar through week 60. Mean change in LVEF from baseline was 4.1 ± 7.1% at week 12 and remained largely unchanged through week 60 (Figure) . Conclusions: This study demonstrated the early and sustained effectiveness of mavacamten with one of the longest follow-ups to date, in a real-world population with a higher racial diversity and disease burden than those in the clinical trials. This data further substantiates the effectiveness and safety profile of mavacamten.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".