Structure-Antitumor Activity Relationships of Aza- and Diaza-Anthracene-2,9,10-Triones and Their Partially Saturated Derivatives.

The 1,8-Diazaanthracene-2,9,10-triones, their 5,8-dihydro derivatives, and 1,8-diazaanthracene-2,7,9,10-tetraones, structurally related to the diazaquinomycin family of natural products, were synthesized in a regioselective fashion employing Diels-Alder strategies. These libraries were studied for their cytotoxicity in a variety of human cancer cell lines in order to establish structure-activity relationships. From the results obtained, we conclude that some representatives of the 1,8-diazaanthracene-2,9,10-trione framework show potent and selective cytotoxicity against solid tumors. Similar findings were made for the related 1-azaanthracene-2,9,10-trione derivatives, structurally similar to the marcanine natural products, which showed improved activity over their natural counterparts. An enantioselective protocol based on the use of a SAMP-related chiral auxiliary derived was developed for the case of chiral 5-substituted 1,8-diazaanthracene-2,9,10-triones, and showed that their cytotoxicity was not enantiospecific.

Real-world apremilast use in biologic-naïve psoriatic arthritis patients. Data from Spanish clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Apremilast is approved for treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Real-world evidence on apremilast effectiveness in clinical practice is limited. METHODS: Observational study enrolling adult patients, across 21 Spanish centres, who had initiated apremilast in the prior 6 (±1) months and were biologic naive. Data were collected at routine follow-up visits 6 and 12 months after apremilast initiation. Primary outcome was 6 and 12-month persistence to apremilast. Secondary outcomes included Disease Activity for PsA (DAPSA), joint erosions, enthesitis, dactylitis, and patient-reported quality of life (QoL, measured using the PsA impact of disease [PsAID] questionnaire). RESULTS: We included 59 patients. Most had oligoarticular PsA, moderate disease activity, and high comorbidity burden. Three-quarters were continuing apremilast at 6 months and two-thirds at 12 months; mean (SD) apremilast treatment duration was 9.43 (1.75) months. DAPSA scores showed improved disease activity: one-third of patients in remission or low activity at apremilast initiation versus 62% and 78% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Eleven of 46 patients with radiographic assessments had joint erosions at apremilast initiation and none at month 12. Median (Q1, Q3) number of swollen joints was 4.0 (2.0, 6.0) at apremilast initiation versus 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) at 12 months. Incidence of dactylitis and enthesitis decreased between apremilast initiation (35.6% and 28.8%, respectively) and month 12 (11.6% and 2.4%, respectively). Over two-thirds of patients had a PSAID-9 score <4 (cut-off for patient-acceptable symptom state) at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: In Spanish clinical practice, two-thirds of PsA patients continued apremilast at 12 months, with clinical benefits at the joint level, no radiographic progression of erosions, and a positive impact on patient-reported QoL. Trial registration number Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03828045.

Expert recommendations for the use of apremilast in psoriatic arthritis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the evidence, there are doubts about the positioning of apremilast in the psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment algorithm. The objective of this project was to collect the scientific evidence and the experience of a group of rheumatologists who are experts in the management of PsA with apremilast in clinical practice in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A scientific committee made up of 6 experts proposed 5 clinical scenarios where the evidence on the use of apremilast in PsA was controversial: (i) Efficacy in peripheral PsA; (ii) Efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis; (iii) Efficacy in PsA with skin involvement; (iv) Comorbidities; and (v) Apremilast safety. After this, a panel of 17 rheumatologists with expertise in PsA management discussed these scenarios and generated a questionnaire with 50 questions and 156 items following the Delphi methodology. This questionnaire was anonymously answered by the panel. RESULTS: After 2 voting rounds, the panel of experts reached consensus in 93 of the 156 items raised (59.6%) (67 in agreement and 26 in disagreement). The degree of consensus was 53.3% in the area of "Efficacy in peripheral PsA"; 60.0% in "Efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis"; 50.0% in "Efficacy in PsA with skin involvement"; 57.1% in "Management of comorbidities in patients with PsA"; and 67.3% in "Implications of safety in the use of apremilast". CONCLUSIONS: The structured opinion of the experts complements the available evidence and contributes to the establishment of consensual guidelines for the use of apremilast in PsA.