All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know AML.

The AML Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy
  TRANSLATE

The AML Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the AML Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The AML Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
Visit:
ALL HubGVhD HubLymphoma HubMDS HubMPN HubMultiple Myeloma

What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 vs Ven + Aza?

During the 63rd ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition, Know AML spoke with Alexander E. Perl, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, US. We asked, What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 versus venetoclax + azacitidine?

What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 vs Ven + Aza?

Perl begins by discussing recent data on CPX-351 in older patients and available regimens for clinicians to choose from. He goes on to outline the importance of analyzing real-world data, and highlights some studies presented at ASH. Perl explains his study, and remarks that there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the two treatments; however, there were differences in comorbidities and toxicities.

 

Share: