Explore the vast range of titles available.

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%.

Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population. These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8–10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544. Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63–73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7–47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60–84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]–NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97–NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44–0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79–85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66–72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70–1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE–NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103–NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48–0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE–NE] vs not reached [NE–NE]; 0·49, 0·37–0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE–NE] vs 86 months [83–NE]; 0·39, 0·33–0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE–NE] vs not reached [103–NE]; 0·44, 0·36–0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death). Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population. Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

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.).

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.).

Among women with previously untreated hormone-receptor–positive advanced breast cancer, the addition of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor palbociclib to letrozole therapy resulted in longer progression-free survival than that with letrozole alone. Hormone-receptor–positive breast cancer represents the largest therapeutic subtype of the disease, accounting for 60 to 65% of all malignant neoplasms of the breast. For more than 50 years, the treatment of hormone-receptor–positive disease has been focused on targeting the estrogen-receptor signaling pathway. 1 However, both new and acquired resistance to hormonal blockade occurs in a large subset of these cancers, and new approaches are needed. 2 The cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) are a large family of serine–threonine kinases that play an important role in regulating cell-cycle progression. The interaction of cyclin D with CDK4 and CDK6 facilitates the hyperphosphorylation of the retinoblastoma (Rb) . . .

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.

With a median follow-up of 13 years, a randomized comparison of radiotherapy with or without antiandrogen therapy in patients with a rising PSA level after prostatectomy showed that 2 years of antiandrogen therapy resulted in a significantly higher overall survival rate. Patients with localized prostatic cancer are often treated with radical prostatectomy. More than 30% of such patients will subsequently have recurrence. This recurrence manifests first as a rising serum level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), 1 – 3 termed biochemical recurrence. Large, retrospective studies suggest that salvage radiation therapy after biochemical recurrence may be associated with long-term freedom from cancer recurrence. 4 , 5 However, 50% of the patients who are treated with salvage radiation therapy will have further disease progression, particularly when there are aggressive disease features. 4 – 7 The combination of radiation therapy and either androgen-deprivation therapy or antiandrogen therapy prolongs survival among some . . .

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 . . .

An additional 5 years of adjuvant aromatase-inhibitor therapy in women with early hormone-receptor–positive breast cancer resulted in longer disease-free survival and a lower incidence of contralateral breast cancer than placebo, but not in longer overall survival. The risk of recurrence of hormone-receptor–positive early breast cancer continues indefinitely. 1 Long-term reduction in the risk of recurrence has been achieved with the antiestrogen agent tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, or a combination of the two. These treatments are administered in a variety of adjuvant regimens, including tamoxifen for 10 years, tamoxifen for up to 5 years followed by an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years, or an initial aromatase inhibitor for 5 years. 2 – 4 Extrapolating from these results, many patients have chosen to continue taking an aromatase inhibitor for more than 5 years (if they do not have unacceptable side effects), despite . . .

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.