Request a Rep
Request a Rep

For SRT-eligible patients with NYHA class II-III obstructive HCM,

CAMZYOS® Demonstrated Significant Improvements Across All Primary and Secondary Endpoints vs Placebo in VALOR-HCM1,2

See Select Safety Profile >

VALOR-HCM: Primary Composite Endpoint*

CAMZYOS Demonstrated Significant Benefit vs Placebo in a Second Phase 3 Clinical Trial1

18% (n=10/56) of patients taking CAMZYOS and 77% (n=43/56) taking placebo met the primary composite endpoint (remained guideline eligible for SRT at Week 16 or chose to undergo SRT at or before Week 16). Two patients in each group decided to proceed with SRT.1

Treatment difference (95% CI): 59% (44, 74);
P<0.0001

Patients no longer guideline eligible and did not choose to undergo SRT at Week 161,2

Percentage of Patients who were Guideline-eligible for SRT and did not Undergo SRT Chart Percentage of Patients who were Guideline-eligible for SRT and did not Undergo SRT Chart

At baseline, 95% of patients were on background therapy (BB, CCB, and disopyramide either as monotherapy or in combination).2

  • *The primary composite endpoint is based on the investigator’s guideline-based recommendation for SRT. Patients who undergo SRT, terminate early, die, or cannot otherwise be assessed for SRT eligibility at the end of the 16-week, placebo-controlled treatment period will also be classified as meeting the primary composite endpoint.3

BB=beta blocker; CCB=calcium channel blocker; CI=confidence interval; HCM=hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; NYHA=New York Heart Association; SRT=septal reduction therapy.

VALOR-HCM: LVOT Obstruction

CAMZYOS Significantly Reduced LVOT Obstruction vs Placebo1

Secondary endpoint: Mean change in post-exercise LVOT peak gradient from baseline to Week 161,2

Treatment difference (95% CI): -38 mmHg (-49, -28);
P<0.0001

Secondary Endpoint: Post-exercise LVOT Peak Gradient Chart Secondary Endpoint: Post-exercise LVOT Peak Gradient Chart

LVOT=left ventricular outflow tract; SD=standard deviation.

Exploratory endpoints: Mean Change in Resting and Valsalva LVOT Peak Gradient Measured Over the 16-Week Treatment Period1,2

While these exploratory endpoints were prespecified, they were not powered for significance.2

LVOT peak gradient difference at rest2
Treatment difference (95% CI): -33.4 mmHg (-42.3, -24.5)

Exploratory Endpoint: LVOT Gradient Chart Exploratory Endpoint: LVOT Gradient Chart

LVOT peak gradient difference with Valsalva2
Treatment difference (95% CI): -47.6 mmHg (-58.2, -37.0)

Exploratory Endpoint: LVOT  Gradient Chart With Valsalva Exploratory Endpoint: LVOT  Gradient Chart With Valsalva


VALOR-HCM: NYHA Class

With CAMZYOS, Significantly More Patients Improved by ≥1 NYHA Class vs Placebo1

Secondary endpoint: Proportion of patients with ≥1 NYHA class improvement from baseline to Week 161,2

Treatment difference (95% CI): 41% (25, 58);
P<0.0001

Exploratory endpoint: NYHA class changes from baseline to Week 16 in CAMZYOS and placebo2

Data below showing improvement of ≥2 classes was exploratory in nature and not powered for significance.

Change in NYHA class at Week 162

NYHA Class Changes Chart NYHA Class Changes Chart

VALOR-HCM: Patient-Reported Outcomes

CAMZYOS Showed Significant Mean Improvement in KCCQ-23–CSS vs Placebo1

Secondary endpoint: Mean change in KCCQ-23–CSS (Patient-Reported Total Symptom Score and Physical Limitations) from baseline to Week 161

Treatment difference (95% CI): 9 (5, 14);
P<0.0001

Secondary Endpoint: Least Squares Mean Change in KCCQ-23 Chart Secondary Endpoint: Least Squares Mean Change in KCCQ-23 Chart

The baseline mean (SD) KCCQ-23–CSS was 70 (16) for the CAMZYOS group (n=56) and 66 (20) for the placebo group (n=56).2

KCCQ-23–TSS: Mean (SD) change from baseline to Week 16 was 10 (16) for CAMZYOS and 2 (14) for placebo.1

KCCQ-23–PL Score: Mean (SD) change from baseline to Week 16 was 10 (19) for CAMZYOS and 2 (17) for placebo.1

The KCCQ-23–CSS is derived from the TSS and PL score of the KCCQ-23. The Clinical Summary Score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing less severe symptoms and/or physical limitations.2

KCCQ-23–CSS=Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (23-item version)–Clinical Summary Score; LS=least squares; PL=physical limitations; SE=standard error; TSS=total symptom score.

VALOR-HCM: Cardiac Biomarker

CAMZYOS Reduced Cardiac Biomarker vs Placebo1,2

Secondary endpoint: Change in NT-proBNP from baseline to Week 161,2

The clinical significance of the NT-proBNP findings is unknown

Geometric mean ratio difference (95% CI): 0.33 (0.26, 0.42)†
P<0.0001

Secondary Endpoint: Geometric Mean Change in NT proBNP Chart Secondary Endpoint: Geometric Mean Change in NT proBNP Chart

†Geometric mean ratios <1.0 represent an x-fold decrease for CAMZYOS compared with placebo.2

GM=geometric mean; NT-proBNP=N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide.

The efficacy of CAMZYOS was evaluated in VALOR-HCM, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 112 adult patients with severely symptomatic drug-refractory obstructive HCM, and NYHA class III–IV or class II with exertional syncope or near syncope. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a starting dose of 5 mg of CAMZYOS (n=56) or placebo (n=56) once daily for 16 weeks. Dosage was monitored and adjusted at Weeks 8 and 12 to optimize patient response (decrease in LVOT gradient with Valsalva) and maintain LVEF ≥50%.1,2

SELECT IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

ADVERSE REACTIONS
Based on the safety profile from the pivotal EXPLORER-HCM trial, there were no new adverse reactions identified in VALOR-HCM. See EXPLORER-HCM safety.

This website is best viewed
using the horizontal display
on your tablet device.

This website is best viewed
using the vertical display
on your mobile device.

References:

  1. CAMZYOS [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2023.
  2. Desai MY, Owens A, Geske JB, et al. Myosin inhibition in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy referred for septal reduction therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80(2):95-108. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.048
  3. Gersh BJ, Maron BJ, Bonow RO, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(25):e212-e260.