John R Teerlink1, G Michael Felker2, John J V McMurray3, Piotr Ponikowski4, Marco Metra5, Gerasimos S Filippatos6, Justin A Ezekowitz7, Kenneth Dickstein8, John G F Cleland9, Jae B Kim10, Lei Lei10, Beat Knusel10, Andrew A Wolff11, Fady I Malik11, Scott M Wasserman10. 1. School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Section of Cardiology, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: john.teerlink@ucsf.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Heart Diseases, Medical University, Clinical Military Hospital, Wroclaw, Poland. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 6. Department of Cardiology, Athens University Hospital Attikon, Athens, Greece. 7. Canadian VIGOUR Centre at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 8. Cardiology Division, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Cardiology Division, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway. 9. National Heart and Lung Institute, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom. 10. Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California. 11. Cytokinetics, Inc., South San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) is a selective cardiac myosin activator that increases myocardial function in healthy volunteers and in patients with chronic heart failure. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, tolerability, safety, and efficacy of OM in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS:Patients admitted for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, dyspnea, and elevated plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides were randomized to receive a double-blind, 48-h intravenous infusion of placebo or OM in 3 sequential, escalating-dose cohorts. RESULTS: In 606 patients, OM did not improve the primary endpoint of dyspnea relief (3 OM dose groups and pooled placebo: placebo, 41%; OM cohort 1, 42%; cohort 2, 47%; cohort 3, 51%; p = 0.33) or any of the secondary outcomes studied. In supplemental, pre-specified analyses, OM resulted in greater dyspnea relief at 48 h (placebo, 37% vs. OM, 51%; p = 0.034) and through 5 days (p = 0.038) in the high-dose cohort. OM exerted plasma concentration-related increases in left ventricular systolic ejection time (p < 0.0001) and decreases in end-systolic dimension (p < 0.05). The adverse event profile and tolerability of OM were similar to those of placebo, without increases in ventricular or supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Plasma troponin concentrations were higher in OM-treated patients compared with placebo (median difference at 48 h, 0.004 ng/ml), but with no obvious relationship with OM concentration (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AHF, intravenous OM did not meet the primary endpoint of dyspnea improvement, but it was generally well tolerated, it increased systolic ejection time, and it may have improved dyspnea in the high-dose group. (Acute Treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil to Increase Contractility in Acute Heart Failure [ATOMIC-AHF]; NCT01300013).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) is a selective cardiac myosin activator that increases myocardial function in healthy volunteers and in patients with chronic heart failure. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, tolerability, safety, and efficacy of OM in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS:Patients admitted for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, dyspnea, and elevated plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides were randomized to receive a double-blind, 48-h intravenous infusion of placebo or OM in 3 sequential, escalating-dose cohorts. RESULTS: In 606 patients, OM did not improve the primary endpoint of dyspnea relief (3 OM dose groups and pooled placebo: placebo, 41%; OM cohort 1, 42%; cohort 2, 47%; cohort 3, 51%; p = 0.33) or any of the secondary outcomes studied. In supplemental, pre-specified analyses, OM resulted in greater dyspnea relief at 48 h (placebo, 37% vs. OM, 51%; p = 0.034) and through 5 days (p = 0.038) in the high-dose cohort. OM exerted plasma concentration-related increases in left ventricular systolic ejection time (p < 0.0001) and decreases in end-systolic dimension (p < 0.05). The adverse event profile and tolerability of OM were similar to those of placebo, without increases in ventricular or supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Plasma troponin concentrations were higher in OM-treated patients compared with placebo (median difference at 48 h, 0.004 ng/ml), but with no obvious relationship with OM concentration (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AHF, intravenous OM did not meet the primary endpoint of dyspnea improvement, but it was generally well tolerated, it increased systolic ejection time, and it may have improved dyspnea in the high-dose group. (Acute Treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil to Increase Contractility in Acute Heart Failure [ATOMIC-AHF]; NCT01300013).
Authors: Anja M Swenson; Wanjian Tang; Cheavar A Blair; Christopher M Fetrow; William C Unrath; Michael J Previs; Kenneth S Campbell; Christopher M Yengo Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Balázs Horváth; Norbert Szentandrássy; Roland Veress; János Almássy; János Magyar; Tamás Bányász; Attila Tóth; Zoltán Papp; Péter P Nánási Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Stephen J Greene; Robert J Mentz; Mona Fiuzat; Javed Butler; Scott D Solomon; Andrew P Ambrosy; Cyrus Mehta; John R Teerlink; Faiez Zannad; Christopher M O'Connor Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Fabiana G Marcondes-Braga; Lídia Ana Zytynski Moura; Victor Sarli Issa; Jefferson Luis Vieira; Luis Eduardo Rohde; Marcus Vinícius Simões; Miguel Morita Fernandes-Silva; Salvador Rassi; Silvia Marinho Martins Alves; Denilson Campos de Albuquerque; Dirceu Rodrigues de Almeida; Edimar Alcides Bocchi; Felix José Alvarez Ramires; Fernando Bacal; João Manoel Rossi Neto; Luiz Claudio Danzmann; Marcelo Westerlund Montera; Mucio Tavares de Oliveira Junior; Nadine Clausell; Odilson Marcos Silvestre; Reinaldo Bulgarelli Bestetti; Sabrina Bernadez-Pereira; Aguinaldo F Freitas; Andréia Biolo; Antonio Carlos Pereira Barretto; Antônio José Lagoeiro Jorge; Bruno Biselli; Carlos Eduardo Lucena Montenegro; Edval Gomes Dos Santos Júnior; Estêvão Lanna Figueiredo; Fábio Fernandes; Fabio Serra Silveira; Fernando Antibas Atik; Flávio de Souza Brito; Germano Emílio Conceição Souza; Gustavo Calado de Aguiar Ribeiro; Humberto Villacorta; João David de Souza Neto; Livia Adams Goldraich; Luís Beck-da-Silva; Manoel Fernandes Canesin; Marcelo Imbroinise Bittencourt; Marcely Gimenes Bonatto; Maria da Consolação Vieira Moreira; Mônica Samuel Avila; Otavio Rizzi Coelho Filho; Pedro Vellosa Schwartzmann; Ricardo Mourilhe-Rocha; Sandrigo Mangini; Silvia Moreira Ayub Ferreira; José Albuquerque de Figueiredo Neto; Evandro Tinoco Mesquita Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 2.000