Report on Omecamtiv Mecarbil (DB11816): A Definitive Analysis of a Novel Cardiac Myosin Activator for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

1.0 Executive Summary

Omecamtiv Mecarbil (DB11816), also known by its development codes CK-1827452 and AMG-423, is a first-in-class, selective, small-molecule cardiac myosin activator.[1] As an investigational agent, it represents a fundamentally new therapeutic strategy for the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a condition characterized by impaired cardiac contractility. Termed a "myotrope," Omecamtiv Mecarbil was designed to directly target the sarcomere—the basic contractile unit of the myocyte—to enhance cardiac performance.[3]

The core rationale behind its development was to augment myocardial contractility without altering intracellular calcium concentrations or increasing myocardial oxygen consumption.[2] This mechanism stands in stark contrast to traditional inotropic agents ("calcitropes"), such as dobutamine and milrinone, whose long-term use in chronic heart failure has been associated with increased arrhythmias and mortality.[5] By directly modulating the interaction between actin and myosin, Omecamtiv Mecarbil aimed to provide a safer, more sustainable means of improving systolic function.

The clinical development program culminated in the landmark Phase III cardiovascular outcomes trial, GALACTIC-HF (Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure).[9] The trial, which enrolled 8,256 high-risk patients with HFrEF, met its primary composite endpoint of reducing the time to a first heart failure (HF) event or cardiovascular (CV) death. However, the observed treatment effect was modest, with an 8% relative risk reduction (Hazard Ratio 0.92) over a median follow-up of 21.8 months.[3] Critically, this benefit was driven entirely by a reduction in non-fatal HF hospitalizations and urgent care visits, with no significant effect on cardiovascular or all-cause mortality.[12]

Subsequent analyses of the GALACTIC-HF data revealed a significant heterogeneity of treatment effect, identifying a potential niche population that derived a more substantial benefit. Specifically, patients with more severe systolic dysfunction, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of  28%, and those with low systolic blood pressure (SBP) of  100 mmHg, demonstrated a more pronounced reduction in the primary endpoint.[10] This suggested a potential role for Omecamtiv Mecarbil in a high-risk, difficult-to-treat patient cohort often intolerant to standard guideline-directed medical therapies.

Despite these findings, the overall modest clinical benefit, coupled with a lack of mortality reduction and no significant improvement in patient-reported quality of life or functional capacity, ultimately led to regulatory failure.[4] In late 2022 and early 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approval, and the agency subsequently issued a Complete Response Letter, citing insufficient evidence of effectiveness.[15] Similarly, the Marketing Authorisation Application was withdrawn from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2024 following a provisional negative opinion.[17] Omecamtiv Mecarbil thus remains an investigational agent, serving as a scientifically important but clinically unsuccessful endeavor that offers critical lessons for future drug development in HFrEF.

2.0 Introduction: The Unmet Need for a Novel Inotrope in HFrEF

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a complex clinical syndrome defined by the inability of the left ventricle to contract effectively, leading to reduced cardiac output and inadequate tissue perfusion.[9] At its core, the pathophysiology of HFrEF involves a fundamental defect in the cardiac sarcomere, with a loss of effective force-generating cross-bridges between the myofilaments actin and myosin.[1] This primary myocardial failure triggers a cascade of maladaptive neurohumoral responses, including the sustained overactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and the sympathetic nervous system (SNS).[20] While initially compensatory, this chronic neurohumoral stimulation drives progressive adverse cardiac remodeling, fibrosis, and myocyte apoptosis, perpetuating a vicious cycle of worsening ventricular function and clinical deterioration.

For decades, the mainstay of HFrEF pharmacotherapy has focused on antagonizing these neurohumoral systems. Landmark clinical trials have established the mortality and morbidity benefits of beta-blockers, RAAS inhibitors (including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEi], angiotensin receptor blockers, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).[19] More recently, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have emerged as a fourth pillar of foundational therapy, providing substantial benefits through mechanisms that are still being fully elucidated.[22] While this four-drug regimen has transformed the prognosis for many patients, a significant residual risk of disease progression, hospitalization, and death remains, particularly in those with advanced disease.

The central defect in HFrEF—impaired contractility—has remained an elusive and perilous therapeutic target for chronic management. The history of pharmacology is replete with attempts to develop oral inotropic agents that could safely augment cardiac performance over the long term. These agents, including beta-adrenergic agonists (e.g., xamoterol) and phosphodiesterase-3 inhibitors (e.g., milrinone, enoximone), have uniformly failed in large-scale outcomes trials, demonstrating either neutral effects or, more commonly, a significant increase in mortality.[5] The underlying reason for this failure lies in their mechanism of action. These traditional inotropes, often termed "calcitropes," increase cardiac contractility by modulating intracellular signaling pathways that lead to an increase in cytosolic calcium concentration () or sensitization to calcium.[3] While this effectively boosts systolic function, it comes at a high physiological cost: increased myocardial oxygen consumption, heightened risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, and direct cardiotoxicity from calcium overload.[5] This created a decades-old pharmacological paradox: the very attempt to correct the primary functional deficit in HFrEF appeared to accelerate the disease's fatal course.

It was in this context of unmet need and historical failure that the "myotrope" hypothesis was conceived. This novel approach proposed that it might be possible to directly and selectively target the molecular motor of the heart—the cardiac myosin protein within the sarcomere—to enhance contractility.[2] The central tenet of this hypothesis was that by directly modulating the kinetics of the actin-myosin cross-bridge cycle, one could increase the force and duration of systolic ejection without perturbing intracellular calcium homeostasis or increasing myocardial oxygen demand.[8] This strategy aimed to bypass the deleterious pathways activated by calcitropes, offering the potential for a safe and effective long-term inotropic therapy. Omecamtiv Mecarbil was developed as the first clinical embodiment of this hypothesis. Its journey from conceptual breakthrough to definitive clinical trial represents a direct, hypothesis-driven attempt to solve the inotrope paradox that has challenged cardiovascular medicine for over a century. Its development was not merely an incremental advance but a paradigm shift, targeting the engine of the heart itself. The ultimate outcome of this endeavor provides a profound case study in the complexities of translating a novel molecular mechanism into a clinically meaningful patient benefit.

3.0 Molecular Profile and Clinical Pharmacology

3.1 Chemical Identity and Physicochemical Properties

Omecamtiv Mecarbil is a synthetic, orally bioavailable small molecule belonging to the N-phenylurea class of organic compounds.[25] It was identified through a high-throughput screening process designed to find compounds that could activate the adenosine triphosphatase (ATPase) activity of cardiac myosin.[27] Its development was a collaborative effort, reflected in its various codes, including CK-1827452 (from Cytokinetics) and AMG-423 (from Amgen).[1] The foundational chemical and pharmacological identifiers for Omecamtiv Mecarbil are consolidated in Table 1.

Table 1: Chemical and Pharmacological Identifiers of Omecamtiv Mecarbil

Property	Value	Source(s)
Generic Name	Omecamtiv Mecarbil	1
Drug Class	Cardiac Myosin Activator (Myotrope)	29
DrugBank ID	DB11816	25
CAS Number	873697-71-3	25
Development Codes	CK-1827452, AMG-423	7
Chemical Formula		25
Molecular Weight	401.44 g/mol	31
IUPAC Name	methyl 4-[[2-fluoro-3-[(6-methyl-3-pyridinyl)carbamoylamino]phenyl]methyl]piperazine-1-carboxylate	1
SMILES String	CC1=NC=C(C=C1)NC(=O)NC2=CC=CC(=C2F)CN3CCN(CC3)C(=O)OC	25
InChIKey	RFUBTTPMWSKEIW-UHFFFAOYSA-N	25

3.2 Pharmacokinetics: Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Erection (ADME)

The clinical pharmacology of Omecamtiv Mecarbil has been characterized through a series of Phase I studies, including a definitive human absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) study using a radiolabeled compound.[35]

Absorption and Bioavailability: Following oral administration of a solution, Omecamtiv Mecarbil is rapidly and extensively absorbed. The absolute oral bioavailability was determined to be high, at 93.5%, indicating that the vast majority of an oral dose reaches systemic circulation.[35] This favorable absorption profile supports its development as an oral agent for chronic therapy.

Metabolism: The primary route of clearance for Omecamtiv Mecarbil is hepatic metabolism.[35] A distinctive feature of its biotransformation is its reliance on the Cytochrome P450 family 4 (CYP4) enzymes. This is noteworthy, as many therapeutic agents are metabolized by the more common CYP3A4, CYP2D6, or CYP2C9 isoenzymes. The principal metabolic pathway involves an oxidative cleavage of the terminal carbamate moiety, a reaction that resembles hydrolysis, to form the major metabolite, M3 (a decarbamoylation product). M3 is subsequently metabolized to M4 (the lactam of M3).[35] While the reliance on the less-common CYP4 family may suggest a lower potential for typical drug-drug interactions, it also introduces a degree of uncertainty, as the factors influencing CYP4 activity (e.g., genetic polymorphisms, specific inhibitors) are less well-characterized than for other major CYP isozymes. In pooled human plasma, unchanged Omecamtiv Mecarbil accounted for the majority of the circulating drug-related material (83.8%), with metabolites M3 and M4 constituting only 6.0% and 3.3%, respectively.[35]

Excretion: The elimination of Omecamtiv Mecarbil and its metabolites is balanced between the renal and fecal routes. Over a 336-hour collection period following a single radiolabeled dose, approximately 85-87% of the administered radioactivity was recovered. Of this, roughly 48% was found in the urine and 38% in the feces.[35] Unchanged parent drug accounted for only a minor fraction of the excreted dose (a mean of 7.7% in urine and 4.1% in feces), confirming that metabolic clearance is the dominant elimination pathway.[35]

Drug-Drug Interactions: The potential for pharmacokinetic interactions with commonly co-administered cardiovascular medications has been investigated. In dedicated Phase I studies, the co-administration of Omecamtiv Mecarbil with digoxin (a substrate of the efflux transporter P-glycoprotein [P-gp]) or amiodarone (a P-gp inhibitor) did not result in any clinically significant alterations in the pharmacokinetics of either drug.[36] This suggests a low risk of interaction via this specific pathway. However, early clinical trial protocols included exclusion criteria for patients taking potent inhibitors of CYP3A4, indicating a degree of initial caution regarding metabolic pathways before the definitive role of the CYP4 family was established.[37]

4.0 Mechanism of Action: A Nuanced Approach to Targeting the Cardiac Sarcomere

4.1 The Myosin-Actin Cross-Bridge Cycle: The Engine of Cardiac Contraction

Cardiac muscle contraction is a sophisticated biomechanical process driven by the cyclical interaction of two key proteins within the sarcomere: myosin and actin. This process, known as the cross-bridge cycle, converts chemical energy stored in adenosine triphosphate (ATP) into mechanical force. The cycle is initiated by an increase in intracellular calcium, which binds to troponin C. This binding induces a conformational change in the troponin-tropomyosin complex, exposing active binding sites on the actin filament.[20]

The myosin head, already energized by the hydrolysis of ATP to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and inorganic phosphate (Pi), can then bind weakly to actin. A critical, rate-limiting step in the cycle is the release of Pi from the myosin head. This event triggers the transition from a weakly-bound to a strongly-bound state and initiates the "power stroke"—a conformational change in the myosin head that pulls the actin filament, causing the sarcomere to shorten and generating force.[20] Following the power stroke, ADP is released. The myosin head remains tightly bound to actin until a new molecule of ATP binds, causing it to detach and reset for the next cycle.[20] The efficiency and kinetics of this cycle directly determine the force and duration of myocardial contraction.

4.2 The Primary Hypothesis: A Selective Cardiac Myosin Activator

Omecamtiv Mecarbil was engineered to intervene directly in this fundamental process. It is a selective small molecule that binds to the catalytic S1 domain of β-cardiac myosin (the protein product of the MYH7 gene), the predominant myosin isoform in the human ventricle.[5] The primary mechanistic hypothesis proposed that Omecamtiv Mecarbil acts as an allosteric activator of the myosin ATPase.[1] Specifically, it was thought to accelerate the overall cross-bridge cycle by increasing the rate of Pi release.[20] By facilitating this rate-limiting step, the drug was expected to increase the probability and speed of transition from the weak-binding to the strong-binding, force-producing state.

The direct consequence of this action is an increase in the number of myosin heads actively engaged with actin at any given moment during systole. This concept, known as increasing the "duty ratio" of the myosin motor, leads to a greater net force generation and a prolongation of the systolic ejection time (SET).[1] A key feature of this proposed mechanism is that it augments contractility without increasing the velocity of contraction () and, most importantly, without altering intracellular calcium transients or increasing myocardial oxygen consumption.[1] This profile theoretically distinguishes Omecamtiv Mecarbil from all conventional inotropes and formed the basis of its potential as a safe, long-term therapy for HFrEF.[8]

4.3 Evolving Mechanistic Understanding and In Vitro Contradictions

While the initial hypothesis of myosin activation was elegant and compelling, subsequent detailed biomechanical and spectroscopic studies revealed a more complex and, at first glance, contradictory mechanism. In purified, cell-free in vitro motility assays, where single actin filaments are observed moving over a bed of myosin molecules, Omecamtiv Mecarbil did not accelerate movement. Instead, it was found to paradoxically inhibit the actin gliding velocity at all concentrations tested.[1] Further investigation suggested that the drug stabilizes the pre-power stroke state of the myosin head, effectively suppressing the force-generating stroke of an individual myosin molecule.[21] This created a significant conundrum: how could a drug that appears to be a myosin inhibitor at the molecular level act as a muscle activator at the tissue and organ level?

To resolve this paradox, the "Stroke Eliminated, Prolonged Time of Attachment" (SEPTA) model was proposed.[21] This refined model posits that while Omecamtiv Mecarbil may suppress the individual power stroke, its dominant effect is to dramatically prolong the duration that each myosin head remains strongly attached to the actin filament. In an ensemble of millions of myosin motors within a cardiomyocyte, this prolonged attachment has a profound effect. It acts as a recruitment mechanism, ensuring that a greater total number of cross-bridges are active and bearing force simultaneously throughout systole. Therefore, the net force produced by the entire sarcomere is increased, not because each myosin is working harder or faster, but because more myosins are working together for a longer period. This model successfully reconciles the observation of molecular inhibition with the consistent in vivo findings of increased systolic ejection time and enhanced cardiac contractility.

This nuanced mechanism, however, contains an inherent physiological trade-off that may be central to understanding the drug's ultimate clinical performance. The very action that generates increased systolic force—the prolonged attachment of myosin to actin—is directly responsible for the hallmark pharmacodynamic effect of Omecamtiv Mecarbil: a dose-dependent prolongation of systolic ejection time.[7] As systole is prolonged, the time available for diastole within each cardiac cycle is necessarily shortened. Diastole is a critical period not only for ventricular filling but also for myocardial perfusion, as the coronary arteries are primarily perfused during this phase of relaxation. At therapeutic doses, this trade-off appears to be well-tolerated. However, at supratherapeutic plasma concentrations (>1,300 ng/mL), this excessive prolongation of systole has been linked to transient myocardial ischemia, presumably due to compromised coronary blood flow.[5] Although this did not translate to an increase in clinical ischemic events in the GALACTIC-HF trial [3], this underlying duality suggests a functional ceiling to the drug's benefit. The mechanism that produces the therapeutic effect also contains the seeds of a potential adverse effect, which may have constrained the achievable dose-response and ultimately tempered the net clinical benefit observed in large-scale trials.

5.0 Clinical Development Program: Building the Case for a Phase III Trial

The clinical development of Omecamtiv Mecarbil progressed through a series of Phase II studies designed to establish its safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic effects in both acute and chronic heart failure settings. These trials were instrumental in providing the proof-of-concept necessary to justify the large and expensive Phase III cardiovascular outcomes trial.

5.1 Phase II Studies in Acute and Chronic Heart Failure

ATOMIC-AHF (Acute Treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil to Increase Contractility in Acute Heart Failure): This Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated an intravenous formulation of Omecamtiv Mecarbil in 613 patients hospitalized with acute heart failure.[20] The primary endpoint was the effect on dyspnea (shortness of breath) compared to placebo.[39] The trial did not meet this primary endpoint, as there was no overall improvement in dyspnea scores for the entire study population.[20] However, a pre-specified analysis of the highest-dose group suggested a potential improvement in dyspnea.[20] More importantly, the trial successfully demonstrated the drug's expected physiological effects in the acute human setting. Treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil led to a significant, dose-dependent increase in systolic ejection time and a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic diameter, confirming target engagement and improved cardiac performance. The drug was also found to be well-tolerated.[20] The failure to improve acute symptoms despite clear improvements in cardiac mechanics was an early indication of a potential disconnect between the drug's physiological effects and patient-perceived benefits.

COSMIC-HF (Chronic Oral Study of Myosin Activation to Increase Contractility in Heart Failure): This Phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 448 patients with stable, chronic HFrEF was pivotal in the decision to proceed to Phase III.[20] The study evaluated an oral formulation of Omecamtiv Mecarbil over 20 weeks, utilizing a pharmacokinetic (PK)-guided dose titration strategy to achieve target plasma concentrations.[20] The results were highly encouraging and provided strong evidence of benefit across multiple domains:

• Improved Cardiac Function and Structure: Compared to placebo, Omecamtiv Mecarbil significantly increased systolic ejection time and stroke volume. Furthermore, it led to favorable cardiac remodeling, evidenced by significant reductions in both left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic diameters.[3]
• Favorable Biomarker Changes: The treatment resulted in a significant reduction in plasma levels of NT-proBNP, a key biomarker of myocardial wall stress and a powerful predictor of adverse outcomes in heart failure.[20] It also produced a modest decrease in heart rate, suggesting a potential reduction in sympathetic nervous system activation secondary to improved cardiac output.[3]
• Symptom Improvement: In a critical finding that bolstered enthusiasm for the drug, the PK-guided titration group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in patient-reported symptoms as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Total Symptom Score (mean change of 9.9 vs. 5.0 for placebo; P=0.03).[41]

The positive results of COSMIC-HF, demonstrating improvements in cardiac structure, function, biomarkers, and patient-reported symptoms, provided a robust rationale for undertaking a large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trial. However, the contrast between the findings of ATOMIC-AHF and COSMIC-HF foreshadowed a complex relationship between the drug's mechanism and its clinical expression. The failure to improve acute dyspnea in ATOMIC-AHF, despite measurable hemodynamic effects, hinted that enhancing contractility alone might not be sufficient to rapidly alleviate symptoms of congestion. More consequentially, the positive KCCQ signal in the 448-patient COSMIC-HF trial set a high expectation for symptomatic benefit. The ultimate failure to replicate this finding in the much larger GALACTIC-HF trial would become a central element in the drug's narrative, contributing significantly to the perception that its benefits, while statistically demonstrable on clinical events, were not meaningful to the patient experience. This discrepancy between the Phase II and Phase III symptom data highlighted the challenges of translating promising mid-stage results into definitive late-stage evidence.

Table 2: Summary of Key Clinical Trials in the Omecamtiv Mecarbil Development Program

Trial Name (Acronym)	Phase	Patient Population	N	Primary Endpoint	Key Result / Outcome	Source(s)
ATOMIC-AHF	IIb	Acute Decompensated Heart Failure	613	Change in dyspnea score	Negative; did not improve dyspnea overall. Confirmed increased systolic ejection time.	20
COSMIC-HF	II	Chronic HFrEF	448	Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics	Positive; improved cardiac function, reduced LV diameters, lowered NT-proBNP, and improved KCCQ symptom score.	20
GALACTIC-HF	III	High-Risk Chronic HFrEF	8,256	Time to first HF event or CV death	Positive (modest); significantly reduced primary composite endpoint (HR 0.92), driven by HF events. No effect on CV death or KCCQ score.	3
METEORIC-HF	III	Chronic HFrEF	276	Change in peak oxygen uptake (pVO2)	Negative; did not improve exercise capacity compared to placebo.	4

6.0 The GALACTIC-HF Trial: A Definitive Cardiovascular Outcomes Study

6.1 Trial Design and Population

The GALACTIC-HF trial was a landmark Phase III, global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study designed to provide a definitive assessment of the efficacy and safety of Omecamtiv Mecarbil in patients with HFrEF.[3]

The trial enrolled 8,256 patients with symptomatic (New York Heart Association functional class II–IV) chronic HFrEF, a documented LVEF of  35%, and elevated natriuretic peptide levels.[9] A key feature of the trial design was its focus on a high-risk population. To be eligible, patients had to either be currently hospitalized for a primary diagnosis of HF or have had a recent history (within the preceding year) of a hospitalization or urgent emergency department visit for HF.[19] This enrichment strategy ensured that the study population had a high baseline event rate, increasing the statistical power to detect a treatment effect.

Key exclusion criteria were designed to ensure patient safety and included evidence of hemodynamic instability, a systolic blood pressure below 85 mmHg, severe renal impairment (eGFR <20 mL/min/1.73 ), or a recent acute coronary syndrome.[3]

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Omecamtiv Mecarbil or a matching placebo, in addition to their existing standard-of-care guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The dosing of Omecamtiv Mecarbil was managed using a PK-guided strategy similar to that used in COSMIC-HF, with doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg administered twice daily to maintain plasma concentrations within a target therapeutic window.[11]

The baseline characteristics of the enrolled population reflected a well-treated, high-risk cohort. The mean age was approximately 65 years, and the mean LVEF was 27%.[11] Patients were receiving robust GDMT for the era in which the trial was conducted, with high rates of beta-blocker (94%), RAAS inhibitor (87%), and MRA (78%) use.[11] However, it is critical to contextualize these results within the evolving landscape of HFrEF therapy. The trial was largely conducted before the widespread adoption of two newer foundational therapies. At baseline, only 20% of patients were receiving an ARNI (sacubitril/valsartan), and a mere 2.5% were on an SGLT2 inhibitor.[3] This aspect of the trial design is crucial for interpreting the clinical relevance of the findings in the context of contemporary practice.

6.2 Analysis of Primary and Secondary Endpoints

Over a median follow-up period of 21.8 months, the GALACTIC-HF trial met its pre-specified primary efficacy endpoint.[3] The results for the primary and key secondary endpoints are summarized in Table 3.

Primary Endpoint: The primary composite endpoint was the time to the first occurrence of a heart failure event (defined as a hospitalization or an urgent visit for HF requiring intravenous therapy) or death from cardiovascular causes. This endpoint occurred in 1,523 of 4,120 patients (37.0%) in the Omecamtiv Mecarbil group, compared to 1,607 of 4,112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group. This represented a statistically significant 8% relative risk reduction, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.92 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P=0.03).[3]

Secondary Endpoints: Despite the success of the primary endpoint, the analysis of the secondary endpoints revealed significant limitations to the drug's efficacy:

• Cardiovascular Death: There was no difference in the risk of cardiovascular death between the two groups. This event occurred in 19.6% of patients receiving Omecamtiv Mecarbil versus 19.4% of those receiving placebo (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11; P=0.86).[11]
• First Heart Failure Event: When analyzed as a standalone endpoint, the reduction in the first HF event trended toward significance but did not meet the threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00).[12]
• All-Cause Death: There was no impact on all-cause mortality, which occurred in 25.9% of patients in both the treatment and placebo arms.[11]
• Change in KCCQ Total Symptom Score: In a major departure from the promising results of the COSMIC-HF trial, there was no significant difference in the change in patient-reported symptoms as measured by the KCCQ score between the Omecamtiv Mecarbil and placebo groups.[11]

Table 3: Efficacy Outcomes of the GALACTIC-HF Trial

Outcome	Omecamtiv Mecarbil Group (N=4,120) Event Rate (%)	Placebo Group (N=4,112) Event Rate (%)	Hazard Ratio (HR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)	P-value	Source(s)
Primary Composite Endpoint (First HF Event or CV Death)	37.0%	39.1%	0.92	0.86–0.99	0.03	11
Cardiovascular Death	19.6%	19.4%	1.01	0.92–1.11	0.86	11
First Heart Failure Event	N/A	N/A	0.93	0.86–1.00	>0.05	12
All-Cause Death	25.9%	25.9%	1.00	0.92–1.09	>0.05	11

6.3 Deconstructing the Efficacy Signal: A Modest, Non-Lethal Benefit

A critical analysis of the GALACTIC-HF results reveals that the statistically significant primary endpoint was driven entirely by a modest reduction in non-fatal clinical events. The complete neutrality of the effect on both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality was a profound limitation.[3] Furthermore, the absolute risk reduction for the primary endpoint was small, at just 2.1% over nearly two years.[15] This raised significant questions among clinicians and regulators about the clinical meaningfulness of the benefit, particularly in the absence of any demonstrable improvement in survival or patient-reported quality of life.

The outcome of the GALACTIC-HF trial, and the subsequent regulatory decisions, must be viewed through the lens of the contemporary HFrEF therapeutic landscape. The bar for what constitutes a meaningful advance in HFrEF has been raised substantially over the past decade. Landmark trials for ARNIs (PARADIGM-HF) and SGLT2 inhibitors (DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced) demonstrated not only robust reductions in HF hospitalizations but also significant and consistent reductions in cardiovascular mortality.[44] These therapies have become foundational pillars of GDMT because they address both morbidity and mortality. In this context, a new agent that offers only a modest reduction in hospitalizations, with no effect on the fatal progression of the disease and no discernible impact on how a patient feels, struggles to find a clear place in the treatment algorithm. The FDA advisory committee's negative recommendation was heavily influenced by this comparison, with reviewers explicitly noting the "small observed treatment effect" and the "absence of a favorable trend for CV death" as primary reasons for their conclusion that the benefits did not outweigh the risks.[15] The EMA expressed similar reservations.[17] Thus, the story of Omecamtiv Mecarbil is not merely about its own data in isolation, but about its performance relative to a new, higher standard of efficacy that it was unable to meet.

7.0 Identifying a Potential Niche: Key Subgroup Analyses from GALACTIC-HF

While the overall results of GALACTIC-HF were modest, pre-specified and exploratory subgroup analyses revealed a significant heterogeneity of treatment effect. These analyses suggested that the benefit of Omecamtiv Mecarbil was not uniform across the HFrEF spectrum but was instead concentrated in specific, higher-risk patient phenotypes. This led to the hypothesis that the drug might have a valuable role as a niche therapy for the most severely ill patients.

7.1 The Critical Role of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF)

The most compelling and statistically robust interaction was observed with baseline LVEF. The data demonstrated a clear and continuous relationship, whereby the therapeutic benefit of Omecamtiv Mecarbil increased as baseline systolic function worsened.[10]

• Quantitative Analysis: The median LVEF in the trial was 28%. When patients were stratified by this median, a stark difference emerged. In the 4,456 patients with an LVEF  28%, treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil resulted in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant 16% relative risk reduction for the primary outcome (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77–0.92). In stark contrast, for patients with an LVEF >28%, the treatment had no effect (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94–1.16). The p-value for this interaction was highly significant at 0.003, indicating that this was unlikely to be a chance finding.[11]
• Severely Reduced EF: The benefit was even more pronounced in patients with the most severe systolic dysfunction. In the lowest quartile of LVEF ( 22%), the relative risk reduction was 17% (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73–0.95).[10] In this very high-risk group, the absolute risk reduction was a substantial 7.4 events per 100 patient-years. This translates to a number needed to treat (NNT) of approximately 12 patients for three years to prevent one primary endpoint event (a cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), a metric that compares favorably with other established HF therapies in high-risk populations.[13] Conversely, the study showed no clear benefit in patients with a baseline LVEF higher than approximately 30%.[46]

7.2 Impact in Patients with Low Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP)

A similar, though less statistically robust, interaction was observed with baseline SBP. Patients with low SBP, a common and challenging clinical scenario in advanced HF, appeared to derive a greater benefit from Omecamtiv Mecarbil.[11]

• Quantitative Analysis: Approximately 18% of the trial population had a baseline SBP  100 mmHg. In this subgroup, the HR for the primary outcome was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70–0.94), indicating a 19% relative risk reduction. In the larger group of patients with SBP >100 mmHg, the effect was attenuated and not statistically significant (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88–1.03). The p-value for this interaction was 0.051, suggesting a strong trend.[11]
• Therapeutic Implication: This finding is of high clinical relevance. Low blood pressure is a major limiting factor for the initiation and up-titration of many foundational GDMT, including ARNIs, beta-blockers, and ACE inhibitors, as these agents all have blood pressure-lowering effects. Omecamtiv Mecarbil was shown to be hemodynamically neutral, with no adverse effect on blood pressure.[47] This unique property makes it a theoretically attractive option for this difficult-to-treat population, as it could potentially be added to their regimen without causing further hypotension.[3]

7.3 Effect Modification by Atrial Fibrillation

A third significant interaction was noted with the presence of atrial fibrillation (AFib) at baseline. Patients in sinus rhythm appeared to derive a greater benefit compared to those with AFib (p for interaction = 0.012).[11] The lack of treatment effect was particularly pronounced in the subset of patients with AFib who were also receiving digoxin.[11] This finding is biologically plausible; the mechanism of Omecamtiv Mecarbil, which increases systolic stroke power and atrial contractile function, may be most effective when there is coordinated atrioventricular contraction, which is lost in AFib.[13]

Table 4: Analysis of Treatment Effect on the Primary Outcome in Key GALACTIC-HF Subgroups

Subgroup	Hazard Ratio (HR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)	P-value for Interaction	Source(s)
Overall Population	0.92	0.86–0.99	N/A	11
LVEF  28%	0.84	0.77–0.92	0.003	11
LVEF >28%	1.04	0.94–1.16		11
SBP  100 mmHg	0.81	0.70–0.94	0.051	11
SBP >100 mmHg	0.95	0.88–1.03		11
Sinus Rhythm	0.86	0.79–0.94	0.012	11
Atrial Fibrillation	1.05	0.93–1.18		11

These compelling subgroup findings formed the crux of the "post-hoc hope" for Omecamtiv Mecarbil—the argument that, despite its modest overall effect, it could be a highly valuable therapy for a well-defined niche of the sickest HFrEF patients. However, this narrative was constructed after the trial data were unblinded. Regulatory bodies, including the FDA and EMA, maintain a well-founded skepticism of subgroup analyses, particularly when they are used to find a signal of benefit within a trial that showed only a marginal overall result. The agencies' primary focus is on the pre-specified primary analysis in the overall trial population. The failure to prospectively design GALACTIC-HF to test the drug's efficacy specifically in this severely ill population was a critical strategic misstep. While the data are scientifically intriguing and generate a strong hypothesis, regulatory approval generally requires that such hypotheses be confirmed in a new, prospective trial. The reliance on post-hoc findings to salvage a modest primary result proved to be an insurmountable hurdle, as both the FDA and EMA explicitly stated that the subgroup evidence was not sufficiently persuasive to warrant approval.[15]

8.0 Assessing Functional Impact: The METEORIC-HF Trial

While GALACTIC-HF provided data on clinical outcomes like hospitalization and death, a key unanswered question was whether improving cardiac contractility with Omecamtiv Mecarbil would translate into an improved functional capacity for patients. To address this, the METEORIC-HF (Multicenter Exercise Tolerance Evaluation of Omecamtiv Mecarbil Related to Increased Contractility in Heart Failure) trial was conducted.[4]

This was a Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study that enrolled 276 patients with HFrEF.[4] The specific goal was to evaluate the effect of Omecamtiv Mecarbil on objective exercise capacity. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 20 in peak oxygen uptake (pVO2) as measured by formal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET).[4] Peak VO2 is the gold standard for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness and is a strong prognostic marker in patients with heart failure.

The results of METEORIC-HF were unequivocally negative. The trial found no difference in the change in pVO2 between the group treated with Omecamtiv Mecarbil and the placebo group.[4] This demonstrated that, despite its known effects on improving cardiac mechanics such as systolic ejection time and stroke volume, the drug did not improve patients' maximal exercise capacity.

This finding delivered a significant blow to the overall value proposition of Omecamtiv Mecarbil. It reinforced the message from the neutral KCCQ results in GALACTIC-HF: the drug's benefits, while statistically significant in reducing hospitalizations, were not perceivable by the patient in terms of either symptom relief or the ability to perform physical activity. For clinicians and patients, therapies that not only prevent adverse events but also improve daily function and quality of life are highly valued. The failure of Omecamtiv Mecarbil to demonstrate any benefit in this domain further weakened its clinical profile and contributed to the regulatory conclusion that its modest benefits did not outweigh its risks.[15]

9.0 Comprehensive Safety and Tolerability Profile

Across its extensive clinical development program, including multiple Phase II and III trials involving thousands of patients, Omecamtiv Mecarbil consistently demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile.[3] In the large GALACTIC-HF trial, the overall incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was balanced between the Omecamtiv Mecarbil and placebo arms.[4]

A key aspect of its safety profile, and a central pillar of its development rationale, was its distinction from traditional inotropes. The drug exhibited several key safety advantages:

• Hemodynamic Neutrality: A standout feature of Omecamtiv Mecarbil is its lack of a significant effect on systolic blood pressure.[3] This was observed consistently, even in the subgroup of patients with low baseline SBP.[14] This is a major potential advantage over most other foundational HFrEF therapies, which can be limited by hypotension.[47]
• No Impact on Renal Function or Electrolytes: Treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil did not adversely affect renal function or serum potassium levels.[3] This contrasts with RAAS inhibitors and MRAs, which carry risks of hyperkalemia and worsening renal function, often complicating their use.
• No Increase in Arrhythmias or Ischemia: A primary concern with any agent that increases cardiac contractility is the potential for proarrhythmic effects or an increase in myocardial oxygen demand leading to ischemia. Reassuringly, large-scale data from GALACTIC-HF showed no significant increase in the rates of ventricular arrhythmias or major cardiac ischemic events (myocardial infarction or unstable angina) compared to placebo.[3]

Despite this generally benign profile, one consistent laboratory finding emerged as an adverse event of special interest: a small, dose-related, and asymptomatic increase in cardiac troponin I levels.[3] This observation was made across multiple trials. The magnitude of the elevation was noted to be modest, with a median increase of 4 ng/L in GALACTIC-HF, a level comparable to that seen after strenuous physical exercise.[12] Importantly, this biochemical finding was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes, such as an increase in myocardial infarction or mortality.[3] The prevailing hypothesis is that this troponin leak does not represent ischemic myocardial necrosis in the traditional sense. Instead, it is thought to be a consequence of the drug's mechanism of action at higher concentrations, where excessive prolongation of systole may lead to cellular stress or a minor supply-demand mismatch, causing a small amount of troponin to leak from intact but stressed cardiomyocytes.[5] While clinically benign in the context of the trials, a drug that chronically elevates a key biomarker for acute cardiac injury presents a significant practical challenge. It can create diagnostic confusion for clinicians evaluating patients for potential acute coronary syndromes and was undoubtedly a point of concern for regulatory agencies evaluating the drug's overall risk-benefit profile.

10.0 The Regulatory Verdict: A Story of Rejection

Despite a novel mechanism of action and a statistically positive outcome in its pivotal Phase III trial, Omecamtiv Mecarbil failed to gain marketing approval from major global regulatory agencies. The decisions made by the U.S. FDA and the EMA provide a clear case study in the modern standards for drug approval in cardiovascular medicine, where statistical significance alone is not sufficient.

10.1 The US FDA Review and Rejection

Following the completion of the GALACTIC-HF trial, the sponsor, Cytokinetics, submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) to the FDA for the treatment of HFrEF.[4] The application was reviewed by the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and was brought before the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee (CRDAC) for public discussion and a vote on its approvability.

On December 13, 2022, the CRDAC meeting was held. After a day of presentations and deliberations, the committee voted decisively against recommending approval, with a final vote of 8 to 3.[15] The discussion during the meeting, along with the briefing documents released by the FDA staff beforehand, illuminated the key deficiencies in the data package. The primary concerns cited by the committee and FDA reviewers were:

1. Modest and Clinically Unpersuasive Efficacy: The 8% relative risk reduction (2.1% absolute risk reduction) in the primary composite endpoint was deemed too small to be considered clinically meaningful, especially given the context of other available therapies.[15]
2. Lack of Benefit on Key Endpoints: The complete absence of a benefit, or even a favorable trend, on cardiovascular mortality was a major weakness. This, combined with the lack of improvement in patient-reported symptoms (KCCQ) or functional capacity (METEORIC-HF), led to the conclusion that the drug did not provide a comprehensive or patient-perceivable benefit.[15]
3. Insufficiency of Subgroup Analyses: While the sponsor argued for approval based on the greater benefit seen in the subgroup of patients with severely reduced LVEF, the committee was not persuaded by this post hoc analysis. Regulatory decisions are primarily based on the pre-specified primary analysis of the overall trial population, and subgroup findings cannot typically rescue a modest overall result.[15]

On February 28, 2023, the FDA formalized this decision by issuing a Complete Response Letter (CRL), officially declining to approve Omecamtiv Mecarbil.[16] The CRL stated that the evidence from GALACTIC-HF was "not sufficiently persuasive to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness" and that an additional clinical trial would be required to support an approval.[16] The sponsor has subsequently stated that it has no plans to conduct another clinical trial of the drug.[16]

10.2 The European Medicines Agency (EMA) Assessment and Withdrawal

A similar process unfolded in Europe. Cytokinetics submitted a Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) to the EMA, seeking approval for the drug under the proposed trade name Kinharto.[17]

The EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) conducted its review and, like the FDA, identified significant concerns. The CHMP's provisional opinion was that Kinharto could not be authorized. The agency's reasoning mirrored that of the FDA, concluding that the primary beneficial effect observed in the main study was "modest" and, critically, "could not be supported by other results from the study," referring to the lack of effect on mortality or other key endpoints.[17] The CHMP also directly addressed the sponsor's argument regarding the low-LVEF subgroup, stating that "there was not enough evidence to support limiting treatment to this subgroup".[17]

Faced with this impending negative decision, the company formally withdrew its application on May 7, 2024.[17] This strategic withdrawal preempted a final rejection and effectively ended the drug's path to market in Europe.

10.3 Global Regulatory Status (Australia - TGA)

A review of the public databases of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) indicates that Omecamtiv Mecarbil has not been submitted for review, nor is it registered for supply in Australia.[52] While the TGA's list of established acceptable intake limits for nitrosamine impurities does include an entry for Omecamtiv Mecarbil, this is a technical reference for potential impurity control and does not in any way imply regulatory submission or approval status.[54] Therefore, Omecamtiv Mecarbil remains an unapproved investigational product in Australia, with no apparent path to registration at present.

11.0 Synthesis and Concluding Perspective

11.1 Critical Appraisal: Why a Novel Mechanism Was Not Enough

The journey of Omecamtiv Mecarbil from a promising novel mechanism to regulatory rejection is a powerful illustration of the evolving challenges in cardiovascular drug development. Its failure cannot be attributed to a single factor but rather to a convergence of a modest efficacy signal, a shifting therapeutic landscape, and the high bar for approval in a field with multiple life-saving therapies.

The core issue lies in the interpretation of the GALACTIC-HF trial results. While technically a "positive" trial, the magnitude of the benefit was insufficient to be considered a major clinical advance. The drug's development and the design of its pivotal trial were conceived in an era before the full impact of ARNIs and SGLT2 inhibitors was realized as the cornerstones of modern HFrEF management. The GALACTIC-HF population, while well-treated by the standards of the time, had very low rates of ARNI (~20%) and SGLT2 inhibitor (~2.5%) use.[3] This raises a critical and unanswerable question: would the modest 8% relative risk reduction observed with Omecamtiv Mecarbil have been present at all if the trial had been conducted in a population fully optimized on contemporary quadruple GDMT?

The powerful and consistent benefits of ARNIs and SGLT2 inhibitors on both morbidity and mortality have fundamentally reshaped the HFrEF treatment paradigm.[22] These agents have substantially lowered the baseline risk for patients on optimal medical therapy. It is plausible that in such a well-treated population, the smaller, contractility-focused benefit of Omecamtiv Mecarbil would be attenuated or even rendered non-existent. The drug's unique mechanism of action, while scientifically elegant, did not translate into a uniquely compelling or sufficiently large clinical benefit to justify its place alongside these transformative therapies. It was ultimately judged not against a placebo in a vacuum, but against the high standard of care it sought to supplement, and in that comparison, its contribution was deemed insufficient.

11.2 The Unfulfilled Promise for Advanced HFrEF and Lessons Learned

Despite its overall failure, the story of Omecamtiv Mecarbil is not without a silver lining. The robust and consistent signal of enhanced benefit in the subgroup of patients with severely reduced LVEF and low systolic blood pressure is scientifically compelling.[14] This is a patient population with a dismal prognosis, who are often intolerant to the life-prolonging therapies that lower blood pressure, and for whom therapeutic options are severely limited.[14] Omecamtiv Mecarbil, with its hemodynamically neutral profile and greater efficacy in this group, held the unfulfilled promise of being a targeted therapy for this significant unmet need. While this remains an unproven hypothesis from a regulatory standpoint, the data from GALACTIC-HF strongly support the design of a future trial focused exclusively on this advanced HFrEF phenotype.

The development and ultimate fate of Omecamtiv Mecarbil offer several crucial lessons for the future of cardiovascular drug development:

1. A Novel Mechanism is Not a Guarantee of Clinical Success: Scientific elegance and successful target engagement are necessary but not sufficient. The ultimate measure of a drug's value is its ability to produce a clinically meaningful impact on patient outcomes.
2. The Bar for Efficacy is High and Continues to Rise: In a therapeutic area with established, life-saving drugs, new agents must demonstrate substantial benefits. A modest reduction in non-fatal events, without a concurrent improvement in mortality or patient-reported quality of life, is unlikely to meet the threshold for regulatory approval or clinical adoption.
3. The Importance of Prospective Trial Design: If the primary hypothesis for a drug's utility lies within a specific high-risk subgroup, this hypothesis must be tested prospectively. Relying on post-hoc analyses to find a niche for a drug after a trial with a modest overall result is a flawed and high-risk strategy that is unlikely to succeed in the modern regulatory environment.
4. The Challenge of Targeting Contractility: The journey of Omecamtiv Mecarbil reaffirms that directly and safely augmenting cardiac contractility remains an exceptionally difficult therapeutic goal. The inherent physiological trade-offs, such as the relationship between prolonged systole and reduced diastolic time, may impose a natural ceiling on the net benefit achievable by this class of agents.

In conclusion, Omecamtiv Mecarbil represents a landmark scientific effort to address a core pathophysiological deficit in HFrEF. While it failed to become a licensed therapy, the insights gained from its novel mechanism and its extensive clinical trial program have significantly advanced our understanding of cardiac physiology and set a new benchmark for the evidence required to bring future heart failure therapies to patients.

Works cited

1. Omecamtiv mecarbil - Wikipedia, accessed October 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omecamtiv_mecarbil
2. Omecamtiv Mecarbil | Potential HFrEF Treatment - Cytokinetics, accessed October 9, 2025, https://cytokinetics.com/medicines-research/pipeline/omecamtiv-mecarbil/
3. A New Class of Inotropes: Omecamtiv Mecarbil - American College of Cardiology, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Articles/2021/02/01/14/46/A-New-Class-of-Inotropes
4. Cytokinetics Announces Topline Results From METEORIC-HF, accessed October 9, 2025, https://ir.cytokinetics.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2022/Cytokinetics-Announces-Topline-Results-From-METEORIC-HF-02-15-2022/default.aspx
5. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Systolic Heart Failure: Clinical Efficacy and ..., accessed October 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12067359/
6. Safety and efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil for heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PMC, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9243594/
7. Omecamtiv mecarbil: a new cardiac myosin activator for the treatment of heart failure - PubMed, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26587768/
8. New Drugs for Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Vericiguat and Omecamtiv Mecarbil, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.abcheartfailure.org/article/new-drugs-for-treatment-of-heart-failure-with-reduced-ejection-fraction-vericiguat-and-omecamtiv-mecarbil/
9. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of GALACTIC-HF - PubMed, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32035892/
10. Effect of Ejection Fraction on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Treated With Omecamtiv Mecarbil in GALACTIC-HF | JACC, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.065
11. Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure - GALACTIC-HF, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Clinical-Trials/2020/11/11/21/01/GALACTIC-HF
12. Modest Gains With Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Chronic HFrEF ..., accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.tctmd.com/news/modest-gains-omecamtiv-mecarbil-chronic-hfref-galactic-hf
13. Omecamtiv Mecarbil: A Personalized Treatment for Patients With Severely Impaired Ejection Fraction∗ | JACC, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.077
14. Effects of omecamtiv mecarbil in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to blood pressure: the GALACTIC-HF trial, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9769958/
15. FDA Advisors Recommend Against Approval of Omecamtiv Mecarbil ..., accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.tctmd.com/news/fda-advisors-recommend-against-approval-omecamtiv-mecarbil
16. FDA declines approval for omecamtiv mecarbil in HFrEF | MDedge - The Hospitalist, accessed October 9, 2025, https://blogs.the-hospitalist.org/content/fda-declines-approval-omecamtiv-mecarbil-hfref
17. Kinharto | European Medicines Agency (EMA), accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/kinharto
18. Omecamtiv mecarbil, a cardiac myosin activator with potential efficacy in heart failure - PMC, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12223975/
19. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of GALACTIC-HF | JACC, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jchf.2019.12.001
20. Cardiac myosin activators for heart failure therapy: focus on omecamtiv mecarbil - PMC, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5916097/
21. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in the treatment of heart failure: the past, the present, and the future - Frontiers, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1337154/full
22. Consensus statement on the current pharmacological prevention and management of heart failure | The Medical Journal of Australia, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2022/217/4/consensus-statement-current-pharmacological-prevention-and-management-heart
23. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063
24. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Black Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From GALACTIC-HF - JACC Journals, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jchf.2022.11.021
25. Omecamtiv Mecarbil | C20H24FN5O3 | CID 11689883 - PubChem, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/11689883
26. Omecamtiv Mecarbil: Uses, Interactions, Mechanism of Action | DrugBank Online, accessed October 9, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB11816
27. Myosin modulators: emerging approaches for the treatment of ... - JCI, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.jci.org/articles/view/148557
28. Omecamtiv mecarbil | CAS#873697-71-3 | myosin activator, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.medkoo.com/products/5015
29. omecamtiv mecarbil (Pending FDA Approval) - Medscape Reference, accessed October 9, 2025, https://reference.medscape.com/drug/omecamtiv-mecarbil-4000282
30. Omecamtiv mecarbil (CK-1827452) | Myosin Activator | AmBeed.com, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ambeed.com/products/omecamtiv-mecarbil.html
31. Omecamtiv Mecarbil | CAS 873697-71-3 | SCBT - Santa Cruz Biotechnology, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.scbt.com/p/omecamtiv-mecarbil-873697-71-3
32. Compound: OMECAMTIV MECARBIL (CHEMBL1800955) - ChEMBL - EMBL-EBI, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/explore/compound/CHEMBL1800955
33. Omecamtiv mecarbil (CK-1827452) ( LSM-45390 ) - Small Molecules, accessed October 9, 2025, https://lincsportal.ccs.miami.edu/SmallMolecules/view/LSM-45390
34. Omecamtiv Mecarbil (CK-1827452, CAS Number: 873697-71-3) | Cayman Chemical, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.caymanchem.com/product/21074/omecamtiv-mecarbil
35. Pharmacokinetics, Disposition, and Biotransformation of [14C ..., accessed October 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34011533/
36. Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interaction Study of Omecamtiv Mecarbil With Amiodarone and Digoxin in Healthy Subjects - PubMed, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34634185/
37. NCT01077167 | Pharmacokinetic Study of Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Heart Failure Patients, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01077167
38. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in the treatment of heart failure: the past, the present, and the future - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10985333/
39. Heart Failure Clinical Trials | Omecamtiv Mecarbil - Cytokinetics, accessed October 9, 2025, https://cytokinetics.com/medicines-research/hfref-clinical-trials/
40. Cardiac myosin activators for heart failure therapy: focus on omecamtiv mecarbil, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.drugsincontext.com/cardiac-myosin-activators-for-heart-failure-therapy-focus-on-omecamtiv-mecarbil/
41. Effects of Omecamtiv Mecarbil on Symptoms and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007814
42. NCT03759392 | Study to Assess the Effect of Omecamtiv Mecarbil on Exercise Capacity in Subjects With Heart Failure | ClinicalTrials.gov, accessed October 9, 2025, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03759392
43. Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: GALACTIC-HF baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials - PubMed, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32985088/
44. Meta-Analysis Indicates SGLT2 Inhibitors Optimal for Heart Failure Treatment | HCPLive, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.hcplive.com/view/meta-analysis-indicates-sglt2-inhibitors-optimal-heart-failure
45. The history and mystery of sacubitril/valsartan: From clinical trial to the real world - Frontiers, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1102521/full
46. Omecamtiv Mecarbil Brings Greater Benefits for Severe Heart Failure, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.acc.org/about-acc/press-releases/2021/05/17/04/16/omecamtiv-mecarbil-brings-greater-benefits-for-severe-heart-failure
47. Omecamtiv Mecarbil Has Biggest Benefit at Lowest EFs - TCTMD.com, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.tctmd.com/news/omecamtiv-mecarbil-has-biggest-benefit-lowest-efs
48. Effects of omecamtiv mecarbil in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to blood pressure: the GALACTIC-HF trial - Oxford Academic, accessed October 9, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/43/48/5006/6590348
49. Abstract 4139790: Efficacy and Safety of Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction According to Age: the GALACTIC-HF Trial | Circulation, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4139790
50. Cytokinetics Announces Availability of Briefing Documents for FDA Advisory Committee Meeting on Omecamtiv Mecarbil, accessed October 9, 2025, https://ir.cytokinetics.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2022/Cytokinetics-Announces-Availability-of-Briefing-Documents-for-FDA-Advisory-Committee-Meeting-on-Omecamtiv-Mecarbil-12-09-2022/default.aspx
51. FDA rejects Cytokinetics' heart failure drug - pharmaphorum, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pharmaphorum.com/news/fda-rejects-cytokinetics-heart-failure-drug
52. Find information about a medicine | Therapeutic Goods ..., accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.tga.gov.au/products/medicines/find-information-about-medicine
53. Prescription medicines: registration of new chemical entities in Australia, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.tga.gov.au/prescription-medicines-registration-new-chemical-entities-australia
54. Established acceptable intake for nitrosamines in medicines, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-02/established-acceptable-intake-for-nitrosamines-in-medicines-table-images.pdf
55. Mechanisms and Models in Heart Failure | Circulation Research, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318158?doi=10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318158
56. Advances in the Management of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction; The Role of SGLT2is, ARNI, Myotropes, Vericiguat, and Anti-inflammatory Agents: A Mini-review - PubMed, accessed October 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36927423/