Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the present study the stereoselective addition of malononitrile to trifluoromethyl arylketimines promoted by chiral iminophosphoranes was investigated. A panel of structurally diverse enantiopure bifunctional superbases, which include thiourea or squaramide unit and a basic site connected by a chiral scaffold, was tested in the asymmetric organocatalytic reaction, to afford an adduct featuring a quaternary stereocenter, in up to a 87/13 enantiomeric ratio. The product was then converted in a single step transformation into the corresponding enantioenriched α-CF[sub.3] substituted quaternary aminoester, without any loss of stereochemical integrity. The absolute configuration of the final product was established by chemical correlation of the chiral compound with a known molecule. Preliminary computational studies were performed in order to elucidate the reaction mechanism and rationalize the stereochemical outcome of the reaction.

New approaches for the synthesis of organic thio- and selenocyanates, and methods to incorporate them into more complex structures, including a wide variety of heterocyclic and polycylic derivatives, are reviewed. Protocols that convert the SCN and SeCN moieties into the thio and seleno derivatives by transforming the cyano group are also examined. In representative cases, the bioactivity data for these classes of compounds are reviewed.

Nirmatrelvir is an M pro inhibitor active against SARS-CoV-2 and is given with ritonavir, a pharmacokinetic enhancer. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, when given within 5 days after symptom onset to patients at high risk for disease progression, decreased the risk of Covid-19–related hospitalization or death by 87.8%.

Vitiligo is a chronic autoimmune disease that causes skin depigmentation. A cream formulation of ruxolitinib (an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2) resulted in repigmentation in a phase 2 trial involving adults with vitiligo. We conducted two phase 3, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials (Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 [TRuE-V1] and 2 [TRuE-V2]) in North America and Europe that involved patients 12 years of age or older who had nonsegmental vitiligo with depigmentation covering 10% or less of total body-surface area. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle control twice daily for 24 weeks to all vitiligo areas on the face and body, after which all patients could apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through week 52. The primary end point was a decrease (improvement) of at least 75% from baseline in the facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI; range, 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating a greater area of facial depigmentation), or F-VASI75 response, at week 24. There were five key secondary end points, including improved responses on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale. A total of 674 patients were enrolled, 330 in TRuE-V1 and 344 in TRuE-V2. In TRuE-V1, the percentage of patients with an F-VASI75 response at week 24 was 29.8% in the ruxolitinib-cream group and 7.4% in the vehicle group (relative risk, 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 8.4; P<0.001). In TRuE-V2, the percentages were 30.9% and 11.4%, respectively (relative risk, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5 to 4.9; P<0.001). The results for key secondary end points showed superiority of ruxolitinib cream over vehicle control. Among patients who applied ruxolitinib cream throughout 52 weeks, adverse events occurred in 54.8% in TRuE-V1 and 62.3% in TRuE-V2; the most common adverse events were application-site acne (6.3% and 6.6%, respectively), nasopharyngitis (5.4% and 6.1%), and application-site pruritus (5.4% and 5.3%). In two phase 3 trials, application of ruxolitinib cream resulted in greater repigmentation of vitiligo lesions than vehicle control through 52 weeks, but it was associated with acne and pruritus at the application site. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and safety of ruxolitinib cream in patients with vitiligo. (Funded by Incyte; TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04052425 and NCT04057573.).

Isavuconazole is a novel triazole with broad-spectrum antifungal activity. The SECURE trial assessed efficacy and safety of isavuconazole versus voriconazole in patients with invasive mould disease. This was a phase 3, double-blind, global multicentre, comparative-group study. Patients with suspected invasive mould disease were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using an interactive voice–web response system, stratified by geographical region, allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation, and active malignant disease at baseline, to receive isavuconazonium sulfate 372 mg (prodrug; equivalent to 200 mg isavuconazole; intravenously three times a day on days 1 and 2, then either intravenously or orally once daily) or voriconazole (6 mg/kg intravenously twice daily on day 1, 4 mg/kg intravenously twice daily on day 2, then intravenously 4 mg/kg twice daily or orally 200 mg twice daily from day 3 onwards). We tested non-inferiority of the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality from first dose of study drug to day 42 in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug (intention-to-treat [ITT] population) using a 10% non-inferiority margin. Safety was assessed in patients who received the first dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00412893. 527 adult patients were randomly assigned (258 received study medication per group) between March 7, 2007, and March 28, 2013. All-cause mortality from first dose of study drug to day 42 for the ITT population was 19% with isavuconazole (48 patients) and 20% with voriconazole (52 patients), with an adjusted treatment difference of −1·0% (95% CI −7·8 to 5·7). Because the upper bound of the 95% CI (5·7%) did not exceed 10%, non-inferiority was shown. Most patients (247 [96%] receiving isavuconazole and 255 [98%] receiving voriconazole) had treatment-emergent adverse events (p=0·122); the most common were gastrointestinal disorders (174 [68%] vs 180 [69%]) and infections and infestations (152 [59%] vs 158 [61%]). Proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events by system organ class were similar overall. However, isavuconazole-treated patients had a lower frequency of hepatobiliary disorders (23 [9%] vs 42 [16%]; p=0·016), eye disorders (39 [15%] vs 69 [27%]; p=0·002), and skin or subcutaneous tissue disorders (86 [33%] vs 110 [42%]; p=0·037). Drug-related adverse events were reported in 109 (42%) patients receiving isavuconazole and 155 (60%) receiving voriconazole (p<0·001). Isavuconazole was non-inferior to voriconazole for the primary treatment of suspected invasive mould disease. Isavuconazole was well tolerated compared with voriconazole, with fewer study-drug-related adverse events. Our results support the use of isavuconazole for the primary treatment of patients with invasive mould disease. Astellas Pharma Global Development, Basilea Pharmaceutica International.

This double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial showed that letrozole, as compared with clomiphene, was associated with higher live-birth and ovulation rates among infertile women with the polycystic ovary syndrome. The polycystic ovary syndrome, which is diagnosed on the basis of hyperandrogenism, oligo-ovulation with associated oligomenorrhea, and polycystic ovaries on ultrasonography, affects 5 to 10% of reproductive-age women and is the most common cause of anovulatory infertility. 1 Although the syndrome is a complex reproductive–metabolic disorder, the hypothalamic–pituitary axis has been the target of first-line ovulation-induction therapy. Clomiphene citrate, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator that antagonizes the negative feedback of estrogen at the hypothalamus with a consequent increase in ovarian stimulation by endogenous gonadotropin, has been used for this indication for decades. Clomiphene has drawbacks, including its overall poor efficacy (only a . . .

Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown. In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety. A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).

Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences. Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Breast Cancer Research Fund, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis.

Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2–10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56–0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism—a known side-effect of tamoxifen—for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Abstract Rationale The aromatase inhibitor anastrozole blocks the conversion of androgens to estrogen and blunts pulmonary hypertension in animals, but its efficacy in treating patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is unknown. Objectives We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of anastrozole in PAH. Methods We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of anastrozole in patients with PAH who received background therapy at two centers. Measurements and Main Results A total of 18 patients with PAH were randomized to anastrozole 1 mg or matching placebo in a 2:1 ratio. The two co–primary outcomes were percent change from baseline in 17β-estradiol levels (E2) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) at 3 months. Anastrozole significantly reduced E2 levels compared with placebo (percent change: −40%; interquartile range [IQR], −61 to −26% vs. −4%; IQR, −14 to +4%; P = 0.003), but there was no difference in TAPSE. Anastrozole significantly increased the 6-minute-walk distance (median change = +26 m) compared with placebo (median change = −12 m) (median percent change: anastrozole group, 8%; IQR, 2 to 17% vs. placebo −2%; IQR, −7 to +1%; P = 0.042). Anastrozole had no effect on circulating biomarkers, functional class, or health-related quality of life. There was no difference in adverse events. Conclusions Anastrozole significantly reduced E2 levels in patients with PAH but had no effect on TAPSE. Anastrozole was safe, well tolerated, and improved 6-minute-walk distance in this small “proof-of-principle” study. Larger and longer phase II clinical trials of anastrozole may be warranted in patients with PAH. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 1545336).