MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Real-world outcomes of mavacamten for symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: global evidence from COLLIGO-HCM

2025· article· en· W4416731922 on OpenAlexaffabout
Arnon Adler, James P. MacNamara, Ozlem Bilen, Rachel Bastiaenen, E. Paratz, Elad Maor, Michael Arad, Matthew Gold, Nirav Patel, Cliff Pruett, E.H. Burford, Ernesto Hernández, Xiurui Han, Patricia Schuler, Pankaj Arora

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsObservational studyHypertrophic cardiomyopathyCohortPopulationRetrospective cohort studyAdverse effectMedical recordCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background / Introduction The mavaCamten ObservationaL evIdence Global cOnsortium in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a global observational study aiming to describe the real-world outcomes of treatments for obstructive HCM, including mavacamten. Participating sites from COLLIGO HCM were located in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Israel. Sites differed in requirements for genotyping and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). Purpose To describe the effectiveness and safety of mavacamten in an international, real-world setting. Methods Retrospective data were collected from existing medical records and electronic registries. Patient characteristics, symptoms, echocardiography data, and adverse events were analyzed at baseline and varying follow-up. Results The COLLIGO-HCM cohort (N = 278) is a racially diverse population with 23.2% Black, 5.4% Asian, 4.3% Middle Eastern or North African participants, with a median follow-up duration of 29.3 weeks (IQR: 13.9-48.3 weeks). At baseline, 92.8% of patients (n=258) had some type of background medication (e.g., beta-blocker [BB] and/or calcium channel blocker [CCB], Table) at the time of mavacamten initiation and 7.2% (n=20) started mavacamten as monotherapy. Of those with some form of background medication, 26.4% (n = 68) discontinued at least one type of therapy, and 14.0% (n = 36) down titrated their background medication after mavacamten initiation (Fig Panel A). For those patients with follow up of at least 12 weeks, 66.5% (180 /208) of patients taking mavacamten had a NYHA classification of II or below, this proportion was 94.5% (153/162) for those with week 24 follow up and remained consistent throughout week 96 (Fig. Panel B). By week 24, most patients achieved mean left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOT) gradients of ≤30 mm Hg both at rest and with Valsalva manoeuvre (90.3% and 76.8%, respectively), and 60.1% of patients achieved ≥ 1 NYHA class improvement by that time., Fig Panel C. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) post mavacamten initiation remained at or above 61% throughout follow-up (baseline value 66%). Temporary interruption of mavacamten due to LVEF ≤ 50% occurred in 11 (4%, 10 recovered and resumed treatment) patients and permanent discontinuation in 3 (1.1%, all recovered). Conclusions Findings from COLLIGO-HCM indicate that mavacamten is safe and effective in reducing LVOT obstruction and improving symptom burden in a racially diverse patient population treated in a real-world setting in 4 continents, with outcomes similar to those seen in more selected, clinical randomised controlled trials. The proportion of patients with LVEF ≤ 50% found in this study, including sites with and without REMS requirements, is aligned with the published 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies→French-language works237,207→