Despite the progress in the development of new therapeutic strategies, relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) still represents a high unmet medical need. Treatment options in this setting include enrollment into clinical trials, allogeneic stem cell transplantation and/or targeted therapy. Nevertheless, it is associated with poor outcomes. Thus, the development of new treatments, which could ameliorate the prognosis of these patients with a good safety profile are highly demanded. Recently, venetoclax (VEN) has been approved for naïve AML patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy. In this regard, regimens including VEN could represent a valuable treatment option even in those with R/R disease and several studies have been conducted to demonstrate its role in this clinical setting. This review aims to summarize the current evidence on the use of VEN regimens in the treatment of R/R AML.

Gilteritinib has been approved as monotherapy in adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) FLT3 mutated with relapsed or refractory disease, in light of its advantages in terms of survival and the favorable safety profile. Hepatobiliary disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders represent the most frequent adverse reactions associated with gilteritinib, whereas the most frequent serious adverse reaction is acute kidney injury. In the summary of product characteristics, gastrointestinal (GI) events are indicated as very common, in particular diarrhea, nausea and stypsis. Furthermore, serious GI disorders have been observed with gilteritinib in clinical trials, including GI hemorrhage, GI perforation and GI obstruction. However, the association with the FLT3 inhibitor has not been confirmed. Nevertheless, serious GI AEs have been recognized as an important potential risk to be monitored in postmarketing surveillance. We present three cases of serious self-limiting GI events observed in patients on gilteritinib treatment for AML, and an analysis of relevant available postmarketing surveillance data.

After European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval, national pricing and reimbursement procedures are necessary to guarantee access to drugs, based on the willingness to pay and the recognition of therapeutic value. These can result in delays in drug availability for patients, even for those with important unfmet needs for whom it may be necessary and ethical to ensure access. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of ruxolitinib for patients with graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after EMA approval at the University Hospital of Catania. We analysed data about the use of ruxolitinib in patients with GvHD, describing their basic characteristics, their outcomes and the cost of the treatment. In the reference period, 24 ruxolitinib treatments were started according to the Summary of Product Characteristic. The average treatment duration was 10 months. Twenty patients showed a response, maintained over time, with no adverse reactions. The total expenditure amounts to EUR 963,424. The use of ruxolitinib in a real population confirms its role in an important therapeutic need. The quantification of costs requires a reflection on the sustainability of early access to medicines authorised by the EMA for serious diseases and in the absence of therapeutic alternatives.

Background/Objectives: The combination of venetoclax (VEN) and hypomethylating agents (HMA), such as azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC), has transformed the treatment landscape for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy. However, optimal management of neutropenia and the impact of post-remission treatment interruptions (washouts) remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of post-remission washouts and their effect on clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center study of 44 AML patients treated with HMA/VEN between 2020 and 2021. Clinical, molecular, and treatment-related data were collected, including treatment duration, post-remission washout duration, response rates, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Statistical analyses included Fisher’s exact test and univariate and multivariate Cox models. Results: Overall, 61% of patients responded to therapy, with significantly higher response rates among those potentially eligible for the VIALE-A trial (86% vs. 39%, p = 0.002). Neither treatment duration nor post-remission washout length was associated with DFS or OS. DFS was significantly longer in patients treated with AZA compared to DEC (p = 0.006). Median OS was 7.7 months, with longer OS observed in patients who met VIALE-A trial eligibility criteria (p = 0.021). Achieving complete remission (CR) was associated with improved OS (14.5 months). Conclusions: Post-remission treatment interruptions (washouts) did not negatively impact DFS or OS, suggesting they may be a safe strategy to support hematologic recovery. However, the choice of HMA appears to influence response duration, with AZA outperforming DEC in maintaining disease control.

Background: Relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) remains a therapeutic challenge due to disease heterogeneity, resistance mechanisms, and poor tolerability to intensive regimens. Venetoclax (VEN), a BCL-2 inhibitor, has shown promise in combination with hypomethylating agents (HMAs), but data on response timing in the R/R setting are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and kinetics of response to HMA-VEN therapy in a real-world cohort of R/R AML patients, with particular focus on early versus late responders. Methods: This prospective single-center study included 33 adult patients with R/R AML treated with VEN plus either azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC) from 2018 to 2021. The primary endpoint was the composite complete remission (cCR) rate and the rate of early and late response, respectively, occurring within two cycles of therapy or later; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), time to relapse (TTR), and safety. Results: The cCR was 58%, with complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) achieved in 52% of patients. Median OS was 9 months. No significant differences in OS or TTR were observed between early (≤2 cycles) and late (>2 cycles) responders. Eight responders (42%) underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), with comparable transplant rates in both groups of responders. Toxicity was manageable. Grade 3–4 neutropenia occurred in all patients, and febrile neutropenia occurred in 44% of patients. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score >2 was associated with inferior response and shorter treatment duration. Conclusions: HMA-VEN therapy is effective and safe in R/R AML, including for patients with delayed responses. The absence of a prognostic disadvantage for late responders supports flexible treatment schedules and suggests that the continuation of therapy may be beneficial even without early blast clearance. Tailored approaches based on performance status and comorbidities are warranted, and future studies should incorporate minimal residual disease (MRD)-based monitoring to refine response assessment.