ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2022
Comparison of Hospital Length of Stay and Supportive Care Utilization Between Patients Treated with CPX-351 and 7+3 for Therapy-Related Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Myelodysplasia-Related Changes.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarkers and advances in AML-MRC: from bench to bedside.Annals of hematology · 2026Review
- Intermediate doses cytarabine after induction with CPX-351 for patients with secondary AML: safety and efficacy.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Transplant Eligible and Ineligible Elderly Patients with AML-A Genomic Approach and Next Generation Questions.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Interaction between myelodysplasia-related gene mutations and ontogeny in acute myeloid leukemia.Blood advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCPX-351 is dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine at a fixed synergistic 1:5 molar ratio. This study determined current real-world use of CPX-351 versus conventional 7+3 (cytarabine+daunorubicin) therapy and evaluated hospital length of stay (LOS) and supportive care utilization in t-AML and AML-MRC. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective, observational study utilized the Premier Healthcare Database and included patients who were aged ≥18 years with t-AML or AML-MRC and treated with CPX-351 or 7+3 between August 1, 2017 and February 28, 2019. All patients treated with 7+3 were required to be eligible for CPX-351 based on its FDA-approved indication. Outcome variables were annualized and adjusted for patient, hospital, and clinical confounding factors. The primary outcome was inpatient LOS. Secondary outcomes included use of blood products and use of anti-infectives.
resultsThe study included 195 qualifying patients treated with CPX-351 and 160 patients treated with 7+3 who were eligible for CPX-351. Approximately one-third of the patients treated with CPX-351 were administered therapy in a hospital-based outpatient setting, and all patients treated with 7+3 received it in the inpatient setting. The regression-adjusted annualized inpatient LOS was shorter with CPX-351 than 7+3 (mean of 183.7 vs 197.1 days, p<0.001). The difference in mean-adjusted LOS was most pronounced for t-AML, with a mean-adjusted LOS of 168.9 versus 192.5 days for CPX-351 versus 7+3, respectively (nominal p<0.001). Supportive care utilization, including the number of administrations of red blood cells, the number of administrations of platelets, and the number of days on anti-infectives, was similar between treatment groups.
conclusionCPX-351 was associated with a shorter inpatient LOS than 7+3. Supportive care use, including blood products and anti-infectives, was similar for CPX-351 and 7+3. These findings suggest CPX-351 conveys resource advantages over 7+3 in patients with newly diagnosed t-AML and AML-MRC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.