ArticleCardio-oncology (London, England)2025
CPX-351 vs. conventional chemotherapy cardiotoxicity in high-risk AML: a post hoc phase III trial analysis.
Article in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correction: CPX-351 vs. conventional chemotherapy cardiotoxicity in high-risk AML: a post hoc phase III trial analysis.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio, has demonstrated significantly improved overall survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with 7 + 3, but its impact on cardiac function remains unclear. In a post hoc analysis of the pivotal clinical trial, we sought to determine the relative cardiotoxicity of CPX-351 vs. 7 + 3 in high-risk AML.
methodsWe evaluated cardiotoxicity in 102 patients with AML (CPX-351, n = 57; 7 + 3, n = 45) who had normal baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 53% and at least one post-baseline echocardiographic assessment. Cardiotoxicity was assessed through reported cardiac adverse events (AEs) and core lab assessment of echocardiograph changes in LVEF and/or left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS).
resultsA clinically significant change in LVEF (absolute change from baseline > 10% and LVEF <53%) and GLS (relative change from baseline > 12% and GLS < 18%) was less common with CPX-351 vs. 7 + 3 at follow-up 1 and/or 2 (8.8% vs. 20.0% and 21.1% vs. 44.4%, respectively). No CPX‑351-treated patients evaluated at final follow-up (follow-up 2) had decreased LVEF < 53% at follow-up 2, compared to 17.8% of 7 + 3-treated patients. The frequency of reported cardiac AEs was similar with CPX-351 (40.4%) and 7 + 3 (42.2%); most frequent were tachycardia in CPX-351-treated patients (CPX-351, 21.1%; 7 + 3, 8.9%) and atrial fibrillation/flutter in 7 + 3-treated patients (CPX-351, 7.0%; 7 + 3, 11.1%).
conclusionIn addition to improving overall survival as demonstrated in the pivotal trial, CPX-351 may also be associated with less cardiotoxicity than 7 + 3 in high-risk AML patients.
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.