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
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your AML Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe 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.
The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kura Oncology, Roche and Syndax and has been supported through a grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 vs venetoclax + azacitidine?
Bookmark this article
During the 63rd ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition, the AML Hub was pleased to speak with Andrew Matthews, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, US. We asked, What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 vs venetoclax and azacitidine?
What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 vs Ven + Aza?
Matthews begins by outlining the background for this study, presented at ASH, where the primary outcome of overall survival (OS) was directly compared for CPX-351 vs Ven + Aza. He discusses results of the study and various analyses of these results. Matthews highlights that since at this point there are not yet significant differences in OS between the two therapies, adverse events are key in decision making.
More about...
Your opinion matters
14 votes - 2 days left ...
Related articles
Newsletter
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox