Head-to-head evidence
Danicamtiv vs Omecamtiv mecarbil
Same mechanism, same race: design-graded trial evidence for both assets, with the grading rationale shown. Grades describe the quality of the evidence, never the merits of either security.
Heart Failure
Shared mechanism: Cardiac myosin (activator) · full Heart Failure pipeline
Danicamtiv
Developed by Kardigan under a licence from Bristol-Myers Squibb
NCT03447990 · Phase 1/2 · completed
This study was a randomized, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 dose-escalation trial in 52 patients, but it was designed to assess safety, tolerability, PK, and pharmacodynamic signals rather than to test a clinical efficacy hypothesis. The primary outcome measures are descriptive safety endpoints with no reported statistical comparisons, and the sample size is small, so despite the sound blinding and control the evidence for danicamtiv is limited. Secondary echocardiographic findings were analyzed by plasma-concentration ranges and are exploratory rather than confirmatory.
Omecamtiv mecarbil
Developed by Cytokinetics
NCT02929329 · Phase 3 · completed
This was a large, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 8,256 participants. Its hard clinical primary endpoint—time to cardiovascular death or first heart-failure event—was met, favoring omecamtiv mecarbil (hazard ratio 0.92, p=0.0252).
Next expected readout: September 2027 · NCT06736574 (registry estimate)
The full competitive landscape for each asset (every same-race competitor with aligned evidence, sortable) is on the asset pages: Danicamtiv's landscape · Omecamtiv mecarbil's landscape