Gilteritinib as Post-Transplant Maintenance for Acute Myeloid Leukemia With Internal Tandem Duplication Mutation of FLT3.

PURPOSE: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS: Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION: Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.

Outcomes in Patients with FLT3-Mutated Relapsed/ Refractory Acute Myelogenous Leukemia Who Underwent Transplantation in the Phase 3 ADMIRAL Trial of Gilteritinib versus Salvage Chemotherapy.

The fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitor gilteritinib improved the survival of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) FLT3-mutated acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial. In this study, we assessed survival and relapse rates of patients in the ADMIRAL trial who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), as well as safety outcomes in patients who received post-transplantation gilteritinib maintenance therapy. ADMIRAL was a global phase 3 randomized controlled trial that enrolled adult patients with FLT3-mutated R/R AML. Patients with R/R AML who harbored FLT3 internal tandem duplication mutations in the juxtamembrane domain or D835/I836 point mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain were randomized (2:1) to gilteritinib (120 mg/day) or to preselected high- or low-intensity salvage chemotherapy (1 or 2 cycles). Patients in the gilteritinib arm who proceeded to HSCT could receive post-transplantation gilteritinib maintenance therapy if they were within 30 to 90 days post-transplantation and had achieved composite complete remission (CRc) with successful engraftment and no post-transplantation complications. Adverse events (AEs) during HSCT were recorded in the gilteritinib arm only. Survival outcomes and the cumulative incidence of relapse were assessed in patients who underwent HSCT during the trial. Treatment-emergent AEs were evaluated in patients who restarted gilteritinib as post-transplantation maintenance therapy. Patients in the gilteritinib arm underwent HSCT more frequently than those in the chemotherapy arm (26% [n = 64] versus 15% [n = 19]). For all transplantation recipients, 12- and 24-month overall survival (OS) rates were 68% and 47%, respectively. Despite a trend toward longer OS after pretransplantation CRc, post-transplantation survival was comparable in the 2 arms. Patients who resumed gilteritinib after HSCT had a low relapse rate after pretransplantation CRc (20%) or CR (0%). The most common AEs observed with post-transplantation gilteritinib therapy were increased alanine aminotransferase level (45%), pyrexia (43%), and diarrhea (40%); grade ≥3 AEs were related primarily to myelosuppression. The incidences of grade ≥III acute graft-versus-host disease and related mortality were low. Post-transplantation survival was similar across the 2 study arms in the ADMIRAL trial, but higher remission rates with gilteritinib facilitated receipt of HSCT. Gilteritinib as post-transplantation maintenance therapy had a stable safety and tolerability profile and was associated with low relapse rates. Taken together, these data support a preference for bridging therapy with gilteritinib over chemotherapy in transplantation-eligible patients.

Perceived barriers to the provision of low vision services among ophthalmologists in India.

PURPOSE: To identify and report the perceived barriers to the provision of low vision services among ophthalmologists in India. METHODS: Seventy nine ophthalmologists responded to a structured self-administered questionnaire. Information was collected to understand the level of awareness and barriers/constraints to provision of low vision services. Significant factors associated with each barrier/constraint and perceptions on providing low vision care were investigated. RESULTS: Lack of training/knowledge [65 (82.3%)], lack of awareness [59 (74.7%)] and non-availability of low vision devices [57 (72.2%)] were perceived as the major constraints / barriers to providing low vision care. At least one significant factor was found for each of the above constraints/barriers in providing low vision care. The perception of lack of awareness as being one of the constraints/barriers was significantly higher [OR 3.97 (95% CI, 1.02 - 7.8)] among ophthalmologists from organisations providing low vision services. The perception of lack of motivation as constraint/barrier was significantly higher [OR 3.62 (95% CI, 1.3 - 10.3)] among ophthalmologists from organisations providing low vision services and/or those involved in VISION 2020: The Right to Sight programmes [OR 3.83 (95% CI, 1.4 - 10.4)]. The likelihood of responding that low vision care is time consuming was greater for those belonging to a teaching institute [OR 7.19 (95% CI, 2.0 - 26.1)], those involved in low vision services [OR 5.45 (95% CI, 1.8 - 16.5)] and those who knew that low vision is a priority in VISION 2020 [OR 15.1, 95% CI, 1.5 -155.4]. CONCLUSION: Ophthalmologists need more education about the benefits of low vision care in order to increase their level of awareness and knowledge.