Comparative efficacy and safety of acoramidis versus tafamidis in patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy: an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Clicks: 11
ID: 331974
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #64 of 80 articles by views in European Heart Journal Open

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Aims Phase 3 trials have shown that acoramidis and tafamidis reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiovascular-related hospitalization (CVH) versus placebo in patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM). Heterogeneity across trials and imbalances in treatment effect modifiers make unadjusted indirect comparisons of treatment outcomes inappropriate. We assessed the efficacy of acoramidis and tafamidis using population-adjusted indirect comparisons. Methods and Results We used matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to assess the comparative efficacy of acoramidis and tafamidis 80 mg on reducing ACM and CVH over 30 months. We utilized individual patient data from ATTRibute-CM (acoramidis; NCT03860935) and published aggregate data from ATTR-ACT (tafamidis; NCT01994889) and adjusted for population differences. After adjusting for treatment effect modifiers and excluding data after initiation of concomitant tafamidis use in ATTRibute-CM, the effective sample size for ATTRibute-CM was 298 (acoramidis, n = 209; placebo, n = 89). In this MAIC model, acoramidis was associated with a 34% relative risk reduction in the cumulative frequency of CVH versus tafamidis (relative risk ratio 0.66; 95% CI 0.46–0.95). No statistically significant difference in ACM was observed between acoramidis and tafamidis, although the point estimate numerically favoured acoramidis (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.41–1.26). No statistically significant differences were identified in the indirect comparisons of adverse events between acoramidis and tafamidis. Conclusion In an anchored MAIC, acoramidis was associated with improved outcomes, reflected by a lower risk of CVH versus tafamidis. In the absence of head-to-head data, these findings may offer important insights regarding the relative effectiveness of newer treatments in ATTR-CM.
Reference Key
openalex_W7221187407 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ahmad Masri, Antoine Jobbe Duval, Heather Falvey, Irina Proskorovsky, Mira Krotneva, Anina Fraschke, Maria Huelsebeck, Emer Joyce, Kuangnan Xiong, Liana Hennum, Jean‐François Tamby, Conor Chandler, Kevin Michael Alexander
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal European Heart Journal Open
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ehjopen/oeag167
URL
https://academic.oup.com/ehjopen/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/ehjopen/oeag167/71753669/oeag167.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.