Said Alsidawi MD , Kaitlin M. Roehl PA , Juan Maria Farina MD , Reza Arsanjani MD , John R. Giudicessi MD, PhD , Jeffrey B. Geske MD , Darrell B. Newman MD , Michael J. Ackerman MD, PhD , Steve R. Ommen MD
{"title":"马伐康坦剂量对壁厚回归的影响:基于基因图谱的长期跟踪观察","authors":"Said Alsidawi MD , Kaitlin M. Roehl PA , Juan Maria Farina MD , Reza Arsanjani MD , John R. Giudicessi MD, PhD , Jeffrey B. Geske MD , Darrell B. Newman MD , Michael J. Ackerman MD, PhD , Steve R. Ommen MD","doi":"10.1016/j.ahj.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>We have previously reported that genetically positive patients have a more profound early decrease in provocable left ventricular outflow tract gradient compared to genetically negative patients utilizing mavacamten in the first 12 weeks of therapy.</p></div><div><h3>Methods and results</h3><p>In this current analysis, we found that genetically positive patients have less favorable remodeling as measured by left ventricular wall thickness regression when evaluated long-term as compared to genetically negative patients, despite an overall better early response to mavacamten. The majority of genetically positive patients were maintained on only 2.5 mg of mavacamten due to early robust response.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We hypothesize that this lower dosing attenuated the long-term benefit of mavacamten in genetically positive patients. We believe that the long-term benefit of mavacamten on positive cardiac remodeling is dose-dependent and not solely related to the magnitude of left ventricular outflow gradient decrease.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7868,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal","volume":"277 ","pages":"Pages 138-141"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of mavacamten dosing on wall thickness regression: an insight from longer term follow-up based on genetic profile\",\"authors\":\"Said Alsidawi MD , Kaitlin M. Roehl PA , Juan Maria Farina MD , Reza Arsanjani MD , John R. Giudicessi MD, PhD , Jeffrey B. Geske MD , Darrell B. Newman MD , Michael J. Ackerman MD, PhD , Steve R. Ommen MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ahj.2024.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>We have previously reported that genetically positive patients have a more profound early decrease in provocable left ventricular outflow tract gradient compared to genetically negative patients utilizing mavacamten in the first 12 weeks of therapy.</p></div><div><h3>Methods and results</h3><p>In this current analysis, we found that genetically positive patients have less favorable remodeling as measured by left ventricular wall thickness regression when evaluated long-term as compared to genetically negative patients, despite an overall better early response to mavacamten. The majority of genetically positive patients were maintained on only 2.5 mg of mavacamten due to early robust response.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We hypothesize that this lower dosing attenuated the long-term benefit of mavacamten in genetically positive patients. We believe that the long-term benefit of mavacamten on positive cardiac remodeling is dose-dependent and not solely related to the magnitude of left ventricular outflow gradient decrease.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American heart journal\",\"volume\":\"277 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 138-141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American heart journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870324001674\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870324001674","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The impact of mavacamten dosing on wall thickness regression: an insight from longer term follow-up based on genetic profile
Introduction
We have previously reported that genetically positive patients have a more profound early decrease in provocable left ventricular outflow tract gradient compared to genetically negative patients utilizing mavacamten in the first 12 weeks of therapy.
Methods and results
In this current analysis, we found that genetically positive patients have less favorable remodeling as measured by left ventricular wall thickness regression when evaluated long-term as compared to genetically negative patients, despite an overall better early response to mavacamten. The majority of genetically positive patients were maintained on only 2.5 mg of mavacamten due to early robust response.
Conclusion
We hypothesize that this lower dosing attenuated the long-term benefit of mavacamten in genetically positive patients. We believe that the long-term benefit of mavacamten on positive cardiac remodeling is dose-dependent and not solely related to the magnitude of left ventricular outflow gradient decrease.
期刊介绍:
The American Heart Journal will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the broad discipline of cardiovascular disease. Our goal is to provide the reader primary investigation, scholarly review, and opinion concerning the practice of cardiovascular medicine. We especially encourage submission of 3 types of reports that are not frequently seen in cardiovascular journals: negative clinical studies, reports on study designs, and studies involving the organization of medical care. The Journal does not accept individual case reports or original articles involving bench laboratory or animal research.