New Drug Approvals

Home » 2017 » June

Monthly Archives: June 2017

DRUG APPROVALS BY DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO .....FOR BLOG HOME CLICK HERE

Paypal donate

Blog Stats

  • 1,603,456 hits

Flag and hits

Flag Counter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,976 other followers

Follow New Drug Approvals on WordPress.com

Archives

Categories

Flag Counter

ORGANIC SPECTROSCOPY

Read all about Organic Spectroscopy on ORGANIC SPECTROSCOPY INTERNATIONAL 

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,976 other followers

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO Ph.D

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO Ph.D

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO, Born in Mumbai in 1964 and graduated from Mumbai University, Completed his Ph.D from ICT, 1991,Matunga, Mumbai, India, in Organic Chemistry, The thesis topic was Synthesis of Novel Pyrethroid Analogues, Currently he is working with GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, Research Centre as Principal Scientist, Process Research (bulk actives) at Mahape, Navi Mumbai, India. Total Industry exp 29 plus yrs, Prior to joining Glenmark, he has worked with major multinationals like Hoechst Marion Roussel, now Sanofi, Searle India Ltd, now RPG lifesciences, etc. He has worked with notable scientists like Dr K Nagarajan, Dr Ralph Stapel, Prof S Seshadri etc, He did custom synthesis for major multinationals in his career like BASF, Novartis, Sanofi, etc., He has worked in Discovery, Natural products, Bulk drugs, Generics, Intermediates, Fine chemicals, Neutraceuticals, GMP, Scaleups, etc, he is now helping millions, has 9 million plus hits on Google on all Organic chemistry websites. His friends call him worlddrugtracker. His New Drug Approvals, Green Chemistry International, All about drugs, Eurekamoments, Organic spectroscopy international, etc in organic chemistry are some most read blogs He has hands on experience in initiation and developing novel routes for drug molecules and implementation them on commercial scale over a 29 year tenure till date Aug 2016, Around 30 plus products in his career. He has good knowledge of IPM, GMP, Regulatory aspects, he has several International patents published worldwide . He has good proficiency in Technology transfer, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Synthesis, Polymorphism etc., He suffered a paralytic stroke/ Acute Transverse mylitis in Dec 2007 and is 90 %Paralysed, He is bound to a wheelchair, this seems to have injected feul in him to help chemists all around the world, he is more active than before and is pushing boundaries, He has 9 million plus hits on Google, 2.5 lakh plus connections on all networking sites, 25 Lakh plus views on dozen plus blogs, He makes himself available to all, contact him on +91 9323115463, email amcrasto@gmail.com, Twitter, @amcrasto , He lives and will die for his family, 90% paralysis cannot kill his soul., Notably he has 13 lakh plus views on New Drug Approvals Blog in 212 countries......https://newdrugapprovals.wordpress.com/ , He appreciates the help he gets from one and all, Friends, Family, Glenmark, Readers, Wellwishers, Doctors, Drug authorities, His Contacts, Physiotherapist, etc

Personal Links

Verified Services

View Full Profile →

Archives

Categories

Flag Counter

Lisdexamphetamine


Lisdexamfetamine structure.svg

Lisdexamfetamine

  • Molecular FormulaC15H25N3O
  • Average mass263.379 Da
608137-32-2 [RN]
Elvanse [Trade name]
Hexanamide, 2,6-diamino-N-[(1S)-1-methyl-2-phenylethyl]-, (2S)-
Lisdexamfetamine
L-lysine-d-amphetamine
(2S)-2,6-diamino-N-[(2S)-1-phenylpropan-2-yl]hexanimidic acid
H645GUL8KJ
L-lysine-(+)-amphetamine
NRP104|Vyvanse®
UNII:H645GUL8KJ
UNII-H645GUL8KJ
Vyvanse®
Image result for Lisdexamfetamine SYNTHESIS

CAS 608137-33-3

(2S)-2,6-Diamino-N-[(1S)-1-methyl-2-phenylethyl]hexanamide dimethanesulfonate

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005032474A2

Image result

Applicants: NEW RIVER PHARMACEUTICALS INC. [US/US]; The Governor Tyler, 1881 Grove Avenue, Radford, VA 24141 (US) (For All Designated States Except US).
MICKLE, Travis [US/US]; (US) (For US Only).
KRISHNAN, Suma [US/US]; (US) (For US Only).
MONCRIEF, James, Scott [US/US]; (US) (For US Only).
LAUDERBACK, Christopher [US/US]; (US) (For US Only).
MILLER, Christal [US/US]; (US) (For US Only)
Inventors: MICKLE, Travis; (US).
KRISHNAN, Suma; (US).
MONCRIEF, James, Scott; (US).
LAUDERBACK, Christopher; (US).
MILLER, Christal; (US)

Image result for MICKLE, Travis

MICKLE, Travis
Dr. Travis Mickle founded KemPharm, Inc. in late 2006. Prior to KemPharm, from January 2003 to October 2005, Dr. Mickle was Director of Drug Discovery and Chemical Development at New River Pharmaceuticals where he also served in a variety of other senior research roles since joining the firm in 2001. During his tenure at New River, Dr. Mickle was responsible for creating a strong preclinical and clinical pipeline of drugs in the areas of ADHD, pain and thyroid dysfunction. His contributions included, as principal inventor, the discovery and development of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, the highly successful therapy for the treatment of ADHD known as Vyvanse®. In addition, Dr. Mickle was an active participant in FDA and DEA meetings representing the company’s discovery/chemistry group and was also called in as a critical scientific resource during New River’s financings and strategic partnering discussions. Before his departure, Dr. Mickle played an integral part in New River’s development into a successful publicly-traded company which was subsequently acquired for $2.6 billion by its marketing partner, Shire PLC. Dr. Mickle is also the author of more than 150 US and international patents and patent applications, as well as several research papers. Dr. Mickle holds a Ph.D in Bio-Organic Chemistry from the University of Iowa.

ABOUT SUMA KRISHNAN

Mrs. Krishnan has served as our Senior Vice President — Regulatory Affairs since 2012. From 2009 to 2011, Mrs. Krishnan served as Senior Vice President of Product Development at Pinnacle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. From 2007 to 2009, she served as Chief Financial Officer of Light Matters Foundation. Previously, Mrs. Krishnan was Vice President, Product Development at New River Pharmaceuticals Inc. from September 2002 until its acquisition by Shire plc in April 2007.

Mrs. Krishnan has 22 years’ experience in drug development. Prior to serving at New River Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mrs. Krishnan served in the following capacities: Director, Regulatory Affairs at Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company; Senior Project Manager at Pfizer, Inc., a multi-national pharmaceutical company; and a consultant at the Weinberg Group, a pharmaceutical and environmental consulting firm.

Mrs. Krishnan began her career as a discovery scientist for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, a multi-national pharmaceutical company, in May 1991. Mrs. Krishnan received an M.S. in Organic Chemistry from Villanova University, an M.B.A. from Institute of Management and Research (India) and an undergraduate degree in Organic Chemistry from Ferguson University (India).

Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

2012 – Current   (over 5 years)
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Senior Project Manager
May, 1991
Discovery Scientist
2009
2011
Senior Vice President of Product Development
2007
2009
Chief Financial Officer
Sep, 2002
Apr, 2007
Vice President, Product Development

Lisdexamfetamine (contracted from Llysinedextroamphetamine) is a prodrug of the central nervous system (CNS) stimulantdextroamphetamine, a phenethylamine of the amphetamine class that is used in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and binge eating disorder.[4][5] Its chemical structure consists of dextroamphetamine coupled with the essential amino acid L-lysine. Lisdexamfetamine itself is inactive prior to its absorption and the subsequent rate-limited enzymaticcleavage of the molecule’s L-lysine portion, which produces the active metabolite (dextroamphetamine).

Lisdexamfetamine can be prescribed for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults and children six and older, as well as for moderate to severe binge eating disorder in adults.[4] The safety and the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children with ADHD three to five years old have not been established.[6]

Lisdexamfetamine is a Class B/Schedule II substance in the United Kingdom and a Schedule II controlled substance in the United States (DEA number 1205)[7] and the aggregate production quota for 2016 in the United States is 29,750 kilograms of anhydrous acid or base.[8] Lisdexamfetamine is currently in Phase III trials in Japan for ADHD.[9]

Uses

Medical

Lisdexamfetamine is used primarily as a treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and binge eating disorder;[4] it has similar off-label uses as those of other pharmaceutical amphetamines.[4][5] Long-term amphetamine exposure at sufficiently high doses in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage,[10][11] but, in humans with ADHD, pharmaceutical amphetamines appear to improve brain development and nerve growth.[12][13][14] Reviews of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies suggest that long-term treatment with amphetamine decreases abnormalities in brain structure and function found in subjects with ADHD, and improves function in several parts of the brain, such as the right caudate nucleus of the basal ganglia.[12][13][14]

Reviews of clinical stimulant research have established the safety and effectiveness of long-term continuous amphetamine use for the treatment of ADHD.[15][16][17] Randomized controlled trials of continuous stimulant therapy for the treatment of ADHD spanning two years have demonstrated treatment effectiveness and safety.[15][17] Two reviews have indicated that long-term continuous stimulant therapy for ADHD is effective for reducing the core symptoms of ADHD (i.e., hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity), enhancing quality of life and academic achievement, and producing improvements in a large number of functional outcomes[note 1] across nine outcome categories related to academics, antisocial behavior, driving, non-medicinal drug use, obesity, occupation, self-esteem, service use (i.e., academic, occupational, health, financial, and legal services), and social function.[16][17] One review highlighted a nine-month randomized controlled trial in children with ADHD that found an average increase of 4.5 IQ points, continued increases in attention, and continued decreases in disruptive behaviors and hyperactivity.[15] Another review indicated that, based upon the longest follow-up studies conducted to date, lifetime stimulant therapy that begins during childhood is continuously effective for controlling ADHD symptoms and reduces the risk of developing a substance use disorder as an adult.[17]

Current models of ADHD suggest that it is associated with functional impairments in some of the brain’s neurotransmitter systems;[18] these functional impairments involve impaired dopamine neurotransmission in the mesocorticolimbic projection and norepinephrine neurotransmission in the noradrenergic projections from the locus coeruleus to the prefrontal cortex.[18]Psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine are effective in treating ADHD because they increase neurotransmitter activity in these systems.[19][18][20] Approximately 80% of those who use these stimulants see improvements in ADHD symptoms.[21] Children with ADHD who use stimulant medications generally have better relationships with peers and family members, perform better in school, are less distractible and impulsive, and have longer attention spans.[22][23] The Cochrane Collaboration‘s reviews[note 2] on the treatment of ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults with pharmaceutical amphetamines stated that while these drugs improve short-term symptoms, they have higher discontinuation rates than non-stimulant medications due to their adverse side effects.[25][26] A Cochrane Collaboration review on the treatment of ADHD in children with tic disorders such as Tourette syndrome indicated that stimulants in general do not make tics worse, but high doses of dextroamphetamine could exacerbate tics in some individuals.[27]

Individuals over the age of 65 were not commonly tested in clinical trials of lisdexamfetamine for ADHD.[4] Lisdexamfetamine is being investigated for possible treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia and excessive daytime sleepiness.[28]

Cognitive

In 2015, a systematic review and a meta-analysis of high quality clinical trials found that, when used at low (therapeutic) doses, amphetamine produces modest yet unambiguous improvements in cognition, including working memory, long-term episodic memory, inhibitory control, and some aspects of attention, in normal healthy adults;[29][30] these cognition-enhancing effects of amphetamine are known to be partially mediated through the indirect activation of both dopamine receptor D1 and adrenoceptor α2 in the prefrontal cortex.[19][29] A systematic review from 2014 found that low doses of amphetamine also improve memory consolidation, in turn leading to improved recall of information.[31] Therapeutic doses of amphetamine also enhance cortical network efficiency, an effect which mediates improvements in working memory in all individuals.[19][32]Amphetamine and other ADHD stimulants also improve task saliency (motivation to perform a task) and increase arousal (wakefulness), in turn promoting goal-directed behavior.[19][33][34] Stimulants such as amphetamine can improve performance on difficult and boring tasks and are used by some students as a study and test-taking aid.[19][34][35]Based upon studies of self-reported illicit stimulant use, 5–35% of college students use diverted ADHD stimulants, which are primarily used for performance enhancement rather than as recreational drugs.[36][37][38] However, high amphetamine doses that are above the therapeutic range can interfere with working memory and other aspects of cognitive control.[19][34]

Physical

Amphetamine is used by some athletes for its psychological and athletic performance-enhancing effects, such as increased endurance and alertness;[39][40] however, non-medical amphetamine use is prohibited at sporting events that are regulated by collegiate, national, and international anti-doping agencies.[41][42] In healthy people at oral therapeutic doses, amphetamine has been shown to increase muscle strength, acceleration, athletic performance in anaerobic conditions, and endurance (i.e., it delays the onset of fatigue), while improving reaction time.[39][43][44] Amphetamine improves endurance and reaction time primarily through reuptake inhibition and effluxion of dopamine in the central nervous system.[43][44][45] Amphetamine and other dopaminergic drugs also increase power output at fixed levels of perceived exertion by overriding a “safety switch” that allows the core temperature limit to increase in order to access a reserve capacity that is normally off-limits.[44][46][47] At therapeutic doses, the adverse effects of amphetamine do not impede athletic performance;[39][43] however, at much higher doses, amphetamine can induce effects that severely impair performance, such as rapid muscle breakdown and elevated body temperature.[48][49][43]

Available forms

Vyvanse capsules are available in doses of 10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, 40 mg, 50 mg, 60 mg, and 70 mg of the active ingredient, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.[50] Vyvanse capsules contain several inactive ingredients, including microcrystalline cellulose, croscarmellose sodium, and magnesium stearate.[50] The capsule shells contain gelatin and titanium dioxide, and may contain FD&C Red 3, FD&C Yellow 6, FD&C Blue 1, black iron oxide, and yellow iron oxide.[50]

DESCRIPTION/SYNTHESIS

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate is approved and marketed in the United States for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in pediatric patients. The active compound lisdexamfetamine contains D-amphetamine covalently linked to the essential amino acid L-lysine. Controlled release of D-amphetamine, a psychostimulant, occurs following administration of lisdexamfetamine to a patient. The controlled release has been reported to occur through hydrolysis of the amide bond linking D-amphetamine and L-lysine.

A procedure for making lisdexamfetamine hydrochloride is described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,223,735 to Mickle et al. (hereinafter Mickle). The procedure involves reacting D-amphetamine with (S)-2,5-dioxopyrrolidin-1-yl 2,6-bis(tert-butoxycarbonylamino)hexanoate to form a lysine-amphetamine intermediate bearing tert-butylcarbamate protecting groups. This intermediate is treated with hydrochloric acid to remove the tert-butylcarbamate protecting groups and provide lisdexamfetamine as its hydrochloride salt. However, this procedure suffers several drawbacks that are problematic when carrying out large scale reactions, such as manufacturing scale, to prepare lisdexamfetamine.

Lisdexamphetamine of formula I, is a conjugate of D-amphetamine and L-lysine and is chemically named as (2S)-2,6-diamino-N-[(lS)-methyl-2-phenylethyl]hexan amide.

Formula- I

Figure imgf000002_0001

Amphetamines stimulate central nervous system (CNS). Amphetamine is prescribed for treatment of various disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obesity, nacrolepsy. It is approved as lisdextamphetamine dimesylate of formula IA and

Formula- IA

Figure imgf000002_0002

marketed under trade name Vyvanse for treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in pediatric patients.

L-Lysine-D-amphetamine and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts were first disclosed in US patent 7,662,787 wherein it is exemplified as hydrochloride salt. Process for preparation of L- lysine-D-amphetamine includes reaction of BOC-Lys-(BOC)-hydroxysuccinimido ester with D-amphetamine in dioxane using diisopropyl ethyl amine (DIPEA) as a base to obtain BOC- protected lisdexamphetamine which is then purified using flash chromatography and further reacted with a mixture of 4M hydrochloric acid /dioxane to yield L-lysine-D-amphetamine hydrochloride. The process is as shown in following scheme:

Figure imgf000003_0001

4M HCI/dioxane

Figure imgf000003_0002

In equivalent patent US 7,659,253, process for preparation of mesylate salt is disclosed as shown below.

Figure imgf000003_0003

NHS;DCC;

isopropyl acetate

-50°C, 2 hr

Figure imgf000003_0004

Process includes preparation of BOC-Lys-(BOC)-hydroxysuccinimido ester wherein use of reagents like N-hydroxy-succinimide (NHS) and Ν,Ν-dicyclohexyl- carbodimiide (DCC) is carried out, The above processes involve use of flash column chromatography to purify crude BOC- protected L-lysine-D-amphetamine intermediate. Use of column chromatography is very cumbersome, tedoius and time consuming, therefore not advisable at commercial scale. Further Ν,Ν-dicyclohexylcarbodimiide is known to be highly toxic and moisture sensitive compound, and its use leads to formation of a large amount of Ν,Ν-dicyclohexyl urea (DCU) as bye product which has to be removed from reaction mixture.. Therefore use of DCC is not advisable at industrial scale.

International patent publication WO 2010/042120 discloses a process for preparing L-lysine- D-amphetamine or its salts by reacting D-amphetamine with protected lysine or its salt by using an alkylphosphonic acid anhydride as coupling agent in presence of a base and solvent. The process is as shown in following scheme:

Figure imgf000004_0001

The application discloses use of alkylphosphonic acid anhydrides, which are expensive, and needs additional testing to show absence of phosphic impurities in intermediate or final compound to meet regulatory requirements. So it is not appealing to use alkylphosphonic anhydrides for scale up operations.

International patent publication WO2010/148305 discloses a process for preparation of lisdexamphetamine by removal of chlorine from Ν,Ν’-bistrifluoroacetyl-chloro- lisdexamphetamine by using hydrogenation catalyst like Pd/C, under hydrogen gas to form Ν,Ν’-bistrifluoroacetyl-lisdexamphetamine which on further deprotection by using deprotecting agent to form lisdexamphetamine. Alternatively first deprotection by using deprotecting agent and then chlorine is removed by using hydrogenation catalyst like Pd/C under hydrogen gas. The process involves additional steps of inserting chloro group and thereafter removing chloro group; further Pd/C is an expensive reagent, hence not attractive option from cost point of view.

It is therefore, necessary to overcome problems associated with prior art and to provide an efficient process for preparation of lisdexamphetamine and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts using easily available, less expensive, easy to handle raw materials and avoid use of column chromatography.

PATENT

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120157706

Figure US20120157706A1-20120621-C00005

Figure US20120157706A1-20120621-C00006

Figure US20120157706A1-20120621-C00007

Figure US20120157706A1-20120621-C00008

Figure US20120157706A1-20120621-C00009

      • Example IPreparation of N,N′-Biscarbobenzyloxy-Lisdexamfetamine (LDX-(Cbz)2)

Figure US20120157706A1-20120621-C00033

General Experimental Procedure: In an appropriately sized, inert jacketed reactor charge 378.3 g of Cbz-Lys(Cbz)-OSu and 2309 g of isopropyl acetate. Heat the stirred slurry to ˜50° C. In a second reactor mix 100.0 g of D-amphetamine into 165 g of isopropyl acetate. Add the D-amphetamine solution to the batch over 1.75-2.25 hours. After the addition is complete stir the heterogeneous mixture at 50-55° C. until the reaction is complete by HPLC analysis. Charge 1197 g of methanol and heat the batch at a vigorous reflux 1 hour. Cool the batch to 45-55° C. over 2 hours then hold at temperature for 14-16 hours. Cool the batch to 15-25° C. at a rate of 5-10° C. per hour. Filter the slurry. Rinse the wet cake with 449 g of methanol and dry on the filter under nitrogen. To a clean, dry reactor charge the crude solids and 1642 g of methanol. Stir the slurry and heat to a vigorous reflux for 2 hours. Cool the batch to 45-55° C. over 1-2 hours then hold at temperature 12-16 hours. Continue cooling to 15-25° C. at a rate of 5-10° C. per hour. Filter the slurry and wash the wet cake with 547 g of methanol. Vacuum dry the wet cake at ˜55° C. to give product as a white to off-white solid (332 g, 88 mol %).

The crude LDX-(Cbz)product isolated from the reaction mixture by crystallization had a purity of 99.96% according to HPLC analysis.1H NMR analysis of crude LDX-(Cbz)2product revealed the presence of 0.57% by weight N-hydroxysuccinimide. The purified LDX-(Cbz)2product obtained by re-crystallization from methanol had a purity of 99.99% according to HPLC analysis.1H NMR analysis of the purified LDX-(Cbz)2product obtained by re-crystallization from methanol revealed that the amount of N-hydroxysuccinimide in the purified LDX-(Cbz)2product was reduced to 0.05% by weight.

Example 2Preparation of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate

Figure US20120157706A1-20120621-C00034

General Experimental Procedure: In an appropriately sized, inert autoclave charge 100.0 g of LDX-(Cbz)2, 1 g of 10% (50% wet) palladium on carbon and 607.5 g of n-butanol. Stir the mixture under 100-150 psi of hydrogen at 80-85° C. until the reaction is complete by HPLC analysis. Heat the batch to 95-97° C. and hot filter. Transfer the product rich filtrate to an appropriately sized glass reactor. Charge 7.6 g of methanesulfonic acid maintaining a batch temperature of 32-38° C. To the resulting solution add 1.3 g of LDX-2MSA seed crystal. Stir the batch 4-16 hours at 32-38° C. Charge 30.4 g of methanesulfonic acid to the slurry over not less than 2 hours maintaining a batch temperature of 32-38° C. After the addition stir 1-2 hours at 32-38° C. Charge 436 g of isopropyl acetate over not less than 2 hours, then stir 1-2 hours at 32-38° C. Cool the batch to 15-25° C. and hold 1 hour. Filter the slurry. Wash the wet cake with a premixed combination of n-butanol (91.5 g) and isopropyl acetate (32.7 g) followed by a wash of isopropyl acetate (87.2 g). Vacuum dry the wet cake at ˜50° C. to give product as a white to off-white solid (78.8 g, 92 mol %).

PATENT

WO 2017098533

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

Process for preparation of lisdexamphetamine and its salts via a novel aziridine intermediate is claimed. Lisdexamphetamine attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Represents the first patenting to be seen from Sun pharmaceutical that focuses on lisdexamphetamine. At the time of publication Pawar and Patel are affiliated with Chattem chemicals .

PATENT

WO 2005032474

IN 2011DE02040

WO 2013011526

IN 2009CH01986

WO 2010042120

PATENT

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013011526A1?cl=en

Figure imgf000015_0002

Formula II A

Formula IV

Figure imgf000014_0001

Formula IVA

Figure imgf000015_0003

EXAMPLES

Examplel Preparation of 2,6-bis-tertiarvbutoxycarbonylamino hexanoic acid

To a solution of L-lysine monohydrochloride (25g, 0.14mol) and sodium hydroxide (15g) in water (250 ml), ditertiary butyl dicarbonate (70.0 g, 0.32 mol) was added at 15-25°C. The temperature was slowly raised to 55-60 °C and the reaction mixture was stirred for 12 hours.. After completion of reaction, ( monitored by TLC), the reaction mixture was cooled to 10-

15°C and pH was adjusted to 2.5-3.5 with 2N hydrochloric acid. The reaction mass’ was then extracted with dichloromethane (2 x 125 ml) and combined organic layer was successively washed with water (150 ml) and brine (150 ml). Dichloromethane layer was distilled under vacuum at 30-40 °C to obtain 29.7g of title compound as a viscous oily mass having purity 96.5% by HPLC.

Example 2: Preparation of (5-tert-butoxycarbonylamino-5-(l-methyl-2-phenyl- ethylcarba moyl)-pentyll-carbamic acid tert-butyl ester;

To a solution of 2,6-bis-tertbutoxy carbonylamino hexanoic acid (7.5g) in dichloromethane (150 ml) , triethyl amine (8.0 ml) was added at 25-30°C and the reaction mixture was stirred for 15 minutes. The solution was cooled to -15 to -10°C and isobutylchloroformate (4.35 g) was slowly added under nitrogen atmosphere and stirred for 30 minutes at -15°C to – 10°C. A solution of D-amphetamine (3.85 g) in dichloromethane (10 ml) was slowly added and. the reaction mixture was stirred at 15 to -10°C for 60 minutes. The reaction completion was checked by TLC. After completion of the reaction temperature was raised to 25-30°C and reaction mixture was successively washed with 0.5 N hydrochloric acid solution (2 x 75 ml), sodium bicarbonate solution (5%w/w 75ml), water (50 ml) and brine solution (50 ml). The combined dichloromethane layer was dried over sodium sulfate (10.0 g) and distilled at 30- 40°C to obtain a semisolid compound which was stirred with a mixture of n-heptane (85 ml) and ethyl acetate (5ml) at 25-30°C for 30 minutes. The solid, thus obtained, was filtered and dried to get 10.21 g of title compound having purity 89.77% by HPLC. The crude compound was dissolved in ethanol (45ml) at 50-55°C and water (50ml) was added. The reaction mixture was slowly cooled to 35-40°C, stirred for 30 minutes. The solid, thus obtained, was filtered and dried to get 7.35g of pure title compound as a white crystalline solid having purity 99.5 % by HPLC.

Example 3: Preparation of lisdexamphetamine dimesylate

(5-Tert-butoxycarbonylamino-5-( 1 -methyl-2-phenyl-ethylcarbamoyl)-pentyl]-carbamic acid tert-butyl ester (2.5g,) was dissolved in a mixture of isopropyl alcohol (10ml) and ethyl acetate (10ml) at 40-45°C and the reaction mass was cooled to 15-20°C. To this cold solution, methane sulphonic acid (2.5g) was added slowly and stirred for 12 hours at 15- 20°C. The reaction completion was checked by HPLC. The resulting solid was filtered, washed with a mixture of chilled isopropyl alcohol (5ml) and ethyl acetate (5ml) and dried under vacuum to obtain 1.68 g of title compound as a white crystalline solid having purity 99.72 % by HPLC.

Example 4: Preparation of lisdexamphetamine dimesylate:

(5-Tert-butoxycarbonylamino-5-( 1 -methyl-2-phenyl-ethylcarbamoyl)-pentyl]-carbamic acid tert-butyl ester (2.5 g,) was dissolved in ethanol (20 ml) at 25-30°C. To the reaction mixture, methane sulphonic acid (2.5 g) was slowly added and the reaction mixture was heated to 55- 60°C and stirred for 3 hours at 55-60°C. The reaction mixture was cooled to 25-30°C, stirred for 2 hours, filtered, washed with ethanol (10ml) and dried under vacuum to obtain 1.55g of lisdexamphetamine dimesylate having purity 99.61 % by HPLC.

Example 5: Purification of lisdexamphetamine dimesylate

Lisdexamphetamine dimesylate (1.40g,) was dissolved in ethanol (10 ml) at 50-55 °C and ethyl acetate (10 ml) was slowly added at 50-55 °C. The reaction mixture was cooled to 20- 25°C and stirred for 30 minutes. The resulting solid was filtered, washed with a mixture of ethanol and ethyl acetate (3 ml, 1: 1) and dried under vacuum at 55-60°C to obtain 1.28g of pure lisdexamphetamine dimesylate as a white crystalline solid having purity 99.90 % by HPLC.

Example 6: Preparation of lisdexamphetamine dimesylate

To a stirred solution of L-lysine monohydrochloride (50g) and sodium hydroxide (30 g) in water (500ml) at 15-25°C, ditertbutyl dicarbonate(140g) was added. The temperature was slowly raised to 55-60°C and reaction mixture was stirred for 12 hours. After completion of reaction, the reaction mixture was cooled to 10-15°C and pH was adjusted to 2.5-3.5 with 2N hydrochloric acid. The reaction mixture was then extracted with dichloromethane (2 x 250 ml) and combined dichloromethane layer was successively washed with water (300 ml) and brine (300 ml). To the organic layer triethyl amine (58g) in dichloromethane (500 ml) was added. The solution was cooled to -15 to -20°C and isobutylchloroformate (42.5 g) was slowly added at -15 to -20°C and stirred for 1 hour. A solution of D-amphetamine (41.85 g) in dichloromethane (100 ml) was slowly added to reaction mixture at -15 to -20 °C and stirred. After completion of the reaction, the reaction mixture was successively washed with 0.5 N hydrochloric solution (2 x 450 ml), sodium bicarbonate solution (5%w/w, 450 ml), water (450 ml) and brine solution (450 ml). The organic layer was dried over sodium sulfate and distilled under vacuum at 30-40°C to afford a residue. To this residue, ethanol (480 ml) was added followed by slow addition of methane sulphonic acid (55 g) under nitrogen atmosphere. The reaction temperature was raised 55-60°C and after completion of reaction, the reaction mixture was cooled to 20-25°C and stirred for 2 hours. The resulting solid was filtered, washed with ethanol (50 ml) and suck dried for 30 minutes, further washed with ethanol and dried to obtain lisdexamphetamine dimesylate.

Mechanism of action

Pharmacodynamics of amphetamine in a dopamine neuron
v · t · e
A pharmacodynamic model of amphetamine and TAAR1
via AADC
The image above contains clickable links

Amphetamine enters the presynaptic neuron across the neuronal membrane or through DAT. Once inside, it binds to TAAR1 or enters synaptic vesicles through VMAT2. When amphetamine enters synaptic vesicles through VMAT2, it collapses the vesicular pH gradient, which in turn causes dopamine to be released into the cytosol (light tan-colored area) through VMAT2. When amphetamine binds to TAAR1, it reduces the firing rate of the dopamine neuron via potassium channels and activates protein kinase A (PKA) and protein kinase C (PKC), which subsequently phosphorylate DAT. PKA-phosphorylation causes DAT to withdraw into the presynaptic neuron (internalize) and cease transport. PKC-phosphorylated DAT may either operate in reverse or, like PKA-phosphorylated DAT, internalize and cease transport. Amphetamine is also known to increase intracellular calcium, an effect which is associated with DAT phosphorylation through a CAMKIIα-dependent pathway, in turn producing dopamine efflux.

Lisdexamfetamine is an inactive prodrug that is converted in the body to dextroamphetamine, a pharmacologically active compound which is responsible for the drug’s activity.[119] After oral ingestion, lisdexamfetamine is broken down by enzymes in red blood cells to form L-lysine, a naturally occurring essential amino acid, and dextroamphetamine.[4] The conversion of lisdexamfetamine to dextroamphetamine is not affected by gastrointestinal pH and is unlikely to be affected by alterations in normal gastrointestinal transit times.[4][120]

The optical isomers of amphetamine, i.e., dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine, are TAAR1 agonists and vesicular monoamine transporter 2 inhibitors that can enter monoamine neurons;[121][122] this allows them to release monoamine neurotransmitters (dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, among others) from their storage sites in the presynaptic neuron, as well as prevent the reuptake of these neurotransmitters from the synaptic cleft.[121][122]

Lisdexamfetamine was developed with the goal of providing a long duration of effect that is consistent throughout the day, with reduced potential for abuse. The attachment of the amino acid lysine slows down the relative amount of dextroamphetamine available to the blood stream. Because no free dextroamphetamine is present in lisdexamfetamine capsules, dextroamphetamine does not become available through mechanical manipulation, such as crushing or simple extraction. A relatively sophisticated biochemical process is needed to produce dextroamphetamine from lisdexamfetamine.[120] As opposed to Adderall, which contains roughly equal parts of racemic amphetamine and dextroamphetamine salts, lisdexamfetamine is a single-enantiomer dextroamphetamine formula.[119][123] Studies conducted show that lisdexamfetamine dimesylate may have less abuse potential than dextroamphetamine and an abuse profile similar to diethylpropion at dosages that are FDA-approved for treatment of ADHD, but still has a high abuse potential when this dosage is exceeded by over 100%.[120]

Pharmacokinetics

The oral bioavailability of amphetamine varies with gastrointestinal pH;[118] it is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically over 75% for dextroamphetamine.[124] Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9.9;[125]consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium.[125][118] Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is predominantly in a water-soluble cationic (salt) form, and less is absorbed.[125] Approximately 15–40% of amphetamine circulating in the bloodstream is bound to plasma proteins.[126]

The half-life of amphetamine enantiomers differ and vary with urine pH.[125] At normal urine pH, the half-lives of dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine are 9–11 hours and 11–14 hours, respectively.[125] An acidic diet will reduce the enantiomer half-lives to 8–11 hours; an alkaline diet will increase the range to 16–31 hours.[127][128] The biological half-life is longer and distribution volumes are larger in amphetamine dependent individuals.[128] The immediate-release and extended release variants of salts of both isomers reach peak plasma concentrations at 3 hours and 7 hours post-dose respectively.[125] Amphetamine is eliminated via the kidneys, with 30–40% of the drug being excreted unchanged at normal urinary pH.[125] When the urinary pH is basic, amphetamine is in its free base form, so less is excreted.[125] When urine pH is abnormal, the urinary recovery of amphetamine may range from a low of 1% to a high of 75%, depending mostly upon whether urine is too basic or acidic, respectively.[125] Amphetamine is usually eliminated within two days of the last oral dose.[127]

The prodrug lisdexamfetamine is not as sensitive to pH as amphetamine when being absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract;[129] following absorption into the blood stream, it is converted by red blood cell-associated enzymes to dextroamphetamine via hydrolysis.[129] The elimination half-life of lisdexamfetamine is generally less than one hour.[129]

CYP2D6, dopamine β-hydroxylase (DBH), flavin-containing monooxygenase 3 (FMO3), butyrate-CoA ligase (XM-ligase), and glycine N-acyltransferase (GLYAT) are the enzymes known to metabolize amphetamine or its metabolites in humans.[sources 9] Amphetamine has a variety of excreted metabolic products, including 4-hydroxyamphetamine, 4-hydroxynorephedrine, 4-hydroxyphenylacetone, benzoic acid, hippuric acid, norephedrine, and phenylacetone.[125][127][134] Among these metabolites, the active sympathomimetics are 4‑hydroxyamphetamine,[138] 4‑hydroxynorephedrine,[139] and norephedrine.[140] The main metabolic pathways involve aromatic para-hydroxylation, aliphatic alpha- and beta-hydroxylation, N-oxidation, N-dealkylation, and deamination.[125][127] The known metabolic pathways, detectable metabolites, and metabolizing enzymes in humans include the following:

Metabolic pathways of amphetamine in humans[sources 9]
Graphic of several routes of amphetamine metabolism
Para-
Hydroxylation
Para-
Hydroxylation
Para-
Hydroxylation
unidentified
Beta-
Hydroxylation
Beta-
Hydroxylation
Oxidative
Deamination
Oxidation
unidentified
Glycine
Conjugation
The image above contains clickable links

The primary active metabolites of amphetamine are 4-hydroxyamphetamine and norephedrine;[134] at normal urine pH, about 30–40% of amphetamine is excreted unchanged and roughly 50% is excreted as the inactive metabolites (bottom row).[125] The remaining 10–20% is excreted as the active metabolites.[125] Benzoic acid is metabolized by XM-ligase into an intermediate product, benzoyl-CoA,[136] which is then metabolized by GLYAT into hippuric acid.[137]

Chemistry

Comparison to other formulationsLisdexamfetamine dimesylate is a water-soluble (792 mg/mL) powder with a white to off-white color.[50]

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate is one marketed formulation delivering dextroamphetamine. The following table compares the drug to other amphetamine pharmaceuticals.

Amphetamine base in marketed amphetamine medications
drug formula molecular mass
[note 8]
amphetamine base
[note 9]
amphetamine base
in equal doses
doses with
equal base
content
[note 10]
(g/mol) (percent) (30 mg dose)
total base total dextro- levo- dextro- levo-
dextroamphetamine sulfate[142][143] (C9H13N)2•H2SO4 368.49 270.41 73.38% 73.38% 22.0 mg 30.0 mg
amphetamine sulfate[144] (C9H13N)2•H2SO4 368.49 270.41 73.38% 36.69% 36.69% 11.0 mg 11.0 mg 30.0 mg
Adderall 62.57% 47.49% 15.08% 14.2 mg 4.5 mg 35.2 mg
25% dextroamphetamine sulfate[142][143] (C9H13N)2•H2SO4 368.49 270.41 73.38% 73.38%
25% amphetamine sulfate[144] (C9H13N)2•H2SO4 368.49 270.41 73.38% 36.69% 36.69%
25% dextroamphetamine saccharate[145] (C9H13N)2•C6H10O8 480.55 270.41 56.27% 56.27%
25% amphetamine aspartate monohydrate[146] (C9H13N)•C4H7NO4•H2O 286.32 135.21 47.22% 23.61% 23.61%
lisdexamfetamine dimesylate[147] C15H25N3O•(CH4O3S)2 455.49 135.21 29.68% 29.68% 8.9 mg 74.2 mg
amphetamine base suspension[note 11][56] C9H13N 135.21 135.21 100% 76.19% 23.81% 22.9 mg 7.1 mg 22.0 mg

History, society, and culture

Lisdexamfetamine was developed by New River Pharmaceuticals, who were bought by Shire Pharmaceuticals shortly before lisdexamfetamine began being marketed. It was developed for the intention of creating a longer-lasting and less-easily abused version of dextroamphetamine, as the requirement of conversion into dextroamphetamine via enzymes in the red blood cells increases its duration of action, regardless of the route of ingestion.[148] The drug lisdexamfetamine dimesylate is the first prodrug of its kind.

On 23 April 2008, Vyvanse received FDA approval for the adult population.[149] On 19 February 2009, Health Canada approved 30 mg and 50 mg capsules of lisdexamfetamine for treatment of ADHD.[150] On 8 February 2012, Vyvanse received FDA approval for maintenance treatment of adult ADHD.[151] In February 2014, Shire announced that two late-stage clinical trials had shown that Vyvanse was not an effective treatment for depression.[152] Lisdexamfetamine was granted approval in a number of European countries for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents over the age of 6 years, as well as adults who are continuing treatment from childhood, after a positive outcome of the regulatory procedure.[153] Shire also recently announced receipt of a positive result from a European decentralised procedure for lisdexamfetamine for adult patients with ADHD in the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark, expanding the indication of lisdexamfetamine to include newly diagnosed adult patients.[154]

In January 2015, lisdexamfetamine was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of binge eating disorder in adults.[28][155][156]

In January 2017, a new dosage form of lisdexamfetamine in the form of a chewable tablet (as opposed to a capsule) was approved by the FDA.[157]

Brand names

Lisdexamfetamine is sold as Tyvense (IE), Elvanse (UK), Venvanse (BR), Vyvanse (CA, US).[158]

Clinical research

Some clinical trials that used lisdexamfetamine as an add-on therapy with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) for treatment-resistant depression indicated that this is no more effective than the use of an SSRI or SNRI alone.[159] Other studies indicated that psychostimulants potentiated antidepressants, and were under-prescribed for treatment resistant depression. In those studies patients showed significant improvement in energy, mood, and psychomotor activity.[160]

Notes

  1. Jump up^ The ADHD-related outcome domains with the greatest proportion of significantly improved outcomes from long-term continuous stimulant therapy include academics (~55% of academic outcomes improved), driving (100% of driving outcomes improved), non-medical drug use (47% of addiction-related outcomes improved), obesity (~65% of obesity-related outcomes improved), self esteem (50% of self-esteem outcomes improved), and social function (67% of social function outcomes improved).[16]The largest effect sizes for outcome improvements from long-term stimulant therapy occur in the domains involving academics (e.g., grade point average, achievement test scores, length of education, and education level), self-esteem (e.g., self-esteem questionnaire assessments, number of suicide attempts, and suicide rates), and social function (e.g., peer nomination scores, social skills, and quality of peer, family, and romantic relationships).[16]Long-term combination therapy for ADHD (i.e., treatment with both a stimulant and behavioral therapy) produces even larger effect sizes for outcome improvements and improves a larger proportion of outcomes across each domain compared to long-term stimulant therapy alone.[16]
  2. Jump up^ Cochrane Collaboration reviews are high quality meta-analytic systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials.[24]
  3. Jump up^ The 95% confidence interval indicates that there is a 95% probability that the true number of deaths lies between 3,425 and 4,145.
  4. Jump up^ Transcription factors are proteins that increase or decrease the expression of specific genes.[93]
  5. Jump up^ In simpler terms, this necessary and sufficient relationship means that ΔFosB overexpression in the nucleus accumbens and addiction-related behavioral and neural adaptations always occur together and never occur alone.
  6. Jump up^ NMDA receptors are voltage-dependent ligand-gated ion channels that requires simultaneous binding of glutamate and a co-agonist (d-serine or glycine) to open the ion channel.[105]
  7. Jump up^ The review indicated that magnesium L-aspartate and magnesium chloride produce significant changes in addictive behavior;[71] other forms of magnesium were not mentioned.
  8. Jump up^ For uniformity, molecular masses were calculated using the Lenntech Molecular Weight Calculator[141] and were within 0.01g/mol of published pharmaceutical values.
  9. Jump up^ Amphetamine base percentage = molecular massbase / molecular masstotal. Amphetamine base percentage for Adderall = sum of component percentages / 4.
  10. Jump up^ dose = (1 / amphetamine base percentage) × scaling factor = (molecular masstotal / molecular massbase) × scaling factor. The values in this column were scaled to a 30 mg dose of dextroamphetamine sulfate. Due to pharmacological differences between these medications (e.g., differences in the release, absorption, conversion, concentration, differing effects of enantiomers, half-life, etc.), the listed values should not be considered equipotent doses.
  11. Jump up^ This product (Dyanavel XR) is an oral suspension (i.e., a drug that is suspended in a liquid and taken by mouth) that contains 2.5 mg/mL of amphetamine base.[56] The amphetamine base contains dextro- to levo-amphetamine in a ratio of 3.2:1,[56] which is approximately the ratio in Adderall. The product uses an ion exchange resin to achieve extended release of the amphetamine base.[56]

PATENT CITATIONS
Cited Patent Filing date Publication date Applicant Title
US20050038121 * Jun 1, 2004 Feb 17, 2005 New River Pharmaceuticals Inc. Abuse resistant lysine amphetamine compounds
US20110196173 * Oct 9, 2008 Aug 11, 2011 Andreas Meudt Process for the Synthesis of Amphetamine Derivatives
DE1493824A1 * Nov 23, 1964 May 22, 1969 Hoffmann La Roche Verfahren zur Herstellung von Aminocarbonsaeureamiden
NON-PATENT CITATIONS
Reference
1 * Benzyl Chloroformate” in Handbook of Reagents for Organic Synthesis – Activating Agents and Protecting Groups ; Pearson et al., eds., 1999 John Wiley & Sons, pp. 46-50
2 * DATABASE CAPLUS CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS SERVICE, COLUMBUS, OHIO, US; Database Accession No. 1966:19805, Abstract NL 6414901, 28 July 1965
3 * Smith and March. Advanced Organic Chemistry 6th ed. (501-502)
Citing Patent Filing date Publication date Applicant Title
US8614346 Jun 18, 2010 Dec 24, 2013 Cambrex Charles City, Inc. Methods and compositions for preparation of amphetamine conjugates and salts thereof
WO2017003721A1 Jun 17, 2016 Jan 5, 2017 Noramco, Inc. Process for the preparation of lisdexamfetamine and related derivatives

References

  1. Jump up^ “Public Assessment Report Decentralised Procedure” (PDF). Shire Pharmaceuticals Contracts Limited. p. 14. Retrieved 23 August 2014.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Millichap JG (2010). “Chapter 9: Medications for ADHD”. In Millichap JG. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Handbook: A Physician’s Guide to ADHD (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Springer. p. 112. ISBN 9781441913968.
    Table 9.2 Dextroamphetamine formulations of stimulant medication
    Dexedrine [Peak:2–3 h] [Duration:5–6 h] …
    Adderall [Peak:2–3 h] [Duration:5–7 h]
    Dexedrine spansules [Peak:7–8 h] [Duration:12 h] …
    Adderall XR [Peak:7–8 h] [Duration:12 h]
    Vyvanse [Peak:3–4 h] [Duration:12 h]
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Brams M, Mao AR, Doyle RL (September 2008). “Onset of efficacy of long-acting psychostimulants in pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder”. Postgrad. Med. 120 (3): 69–88. PMID 18824827. doi:10.3810/pgm.2008.09.1909.Onset of efficacy was earliest for d-MPH-ER at 0.5 hours, followed by d, l-MPH-LA at 1 to 2 hours, MCD at 1.5 hours, d, l-MPH-OR at 1 to 2 hours, MAS-XR at 1.5 to 2 hours, MTS at 2 hours, and LDX at approximately 2 hours. … MAS-XR, and LDX have a long duration of action at 12 hours postdose
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m “Vyvanse Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. January 2015. Retrieved 24 February 2015.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b Heal DJ, Smith SL, Gosden J, Nutt DJ (June 2013). “Amphetamine, past and present – a pharmacological and clinical perspective”. J. Psychopharmacol. 27 (6): 479–496. PMC 3666194Freely accessible. PMID 23539642. doi:10.1177/0269881113482532.
  6. Jump up^ “Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (generic).” Brown University Psychopharmacology Update 19.7 (2008): 1–2. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12 September 2010.
  7. Jump up^ “DEA – Department of Justice” (PDF). DEA – Department of Justice. Retrieved 1 July 2014.
  8. Jump up^ “DEA Office of Diversion Control” (PDF). DEA. Retrieved 1 July 2014.
  9. Jump up^ “Phase-III clinical trials in Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (In children, In adolescents) in Japan (PO)”. Retrieved 20 March 2016.
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b Carvalho M, Carmo H, Costa VM, Capela JP, Pontes H, Remião F, Carvalho F, Bastos Mde L (August 2012). “Toxicity of amphetamines: an update”. Arch. Toxicol. 86 (8): 1167–1231. PMID 22392347. doi:10.1007/s00204-012-0815-5.
  11. Jump up^ Berman S, O’Neill J, Fears S, Bartzokis G, London ED (October 2008). “Abuse of amphetamines and structural abnormalities in the brain”. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1141: 195–220. PMC 2769923Freely accessible. PMID 18991959. doi:10.1196/annals.1441.031.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Hart H, Radua J, Nakao T, Mataix-Cols D, Rubia K (February 2013). “Meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of inhibition and attention in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: exploring task-specific, stimulant medication, and age effects”. JAMA Psychiatry. 70 (2): 185–198. PMID 23247506. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.277.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Spencer TJ, Brown A, Seidman LJ, Valera EM, Makris N, Lomedico A, Faraone SV, Biederman J (September 2013). “Effect of psychostimulants on brain structure and function in ADHD: a qualitative literature review of magnetic resonance imaging-based neuroimaging studies”. J. Clin. Psychiatry. 74 (9): 902–917. PMC 3801446Freely accessible. PMID 24107764. doi:10.4088/JCP.12r08287.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Frodl T, Skokauskas N (February 2012). “Meta-analysis of structural MRI studies in children and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder indicates treatment effects.”. Acta psychiatrica Scand. 125 (2): 114–126. PMID 22118249. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01786.x.Basal ganglia regions like the right globus pallidus, the right putamen, and the nucleus caudatus are structurally affected in children with ADHD. These changes and alterations in limbic regions like ACC and amygdala are more pronounced in non-treated populations and seem to diminish over time from child to adulthood. Treatment seems to have positive effects on brain structure.
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b c Millichap JG (2010). “Chapter 9: Medications for ADHD”. In Millichap JG. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Handbook: A Physician’s Guide to ADHD (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Springer. pp. 121–123, 125–127. ISBN 9781441913968.Ongoing research has provided answers to many of the parents’ concerns, and has confirmed the effectiveness and safety of the long-term use of medication.
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Arnold LE, Hodgkins P, Caci H, Kahle J, Young S (February 2015). “Effect of treatment modality on long-term outcomes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review”. PLoS ONE. 10 (2): e0116407. PMC 4340791Freely accessible. PMID 25714373. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116407.The highest proportion of improved outcomes was reported with combination treatment (83% of outcomes). Among significantly improved outcomes, the largest effect sizes were found for combination treatment. The greatest improvements were associated with academic, self-esteem, or social function outcomes.
    Figure 3: Treatment benefit by treatment type and outcome group
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Huang YS, Tsai MH (July 2011). “Long-term outcomes with medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: current status of knowledge”. CNS Drugs. 25 (7): 539–554. PMID 21699268. doi:10.2165/11589380-000000000-00000.Recent studies have demonstrated that stimulants, along with the non-stimulants atomoxetine and extended-release guanfacine, are continuously effective for more than 2-year treatment periods with few and tolerable adverse effects. The effectiveness of long-term therapy includes not only the core symptoms of ADHD, but also improved quality of life and academic achievements. The most concerning short-term adverse effects of stimulants, such as elevated blood pressure and heart rate, waned in long-term follow-up studies. … In the longest follow-up study (of more than 10 years), lifetime stimulant treatment for ADHD was effective and protective against the development of adverse psychiatric disorders.
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b c Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 6: Widely Projecting Systems: Monoamines, Acetylcholine, and Orexin”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 154–157. ISBN 9780071481274.
  19. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 13: Higher Cognitive Function and Behavioral Control”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 318, 321. ISBN 9780071481274.Therapeutic (relatively low) doses of psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate and amphetamine, improve performance on working memory tasks both in normal subjects and those with ADHD. … stimulants act not only on working memory function, but also on general levels of arousal and, within the nucleus accumbens, improve the saliency of tasks. Thus, stimulants improve performance on effortful but tedious tasks … through indirect stimulation of dopamine and norepinephrine receptors. …
    Beyond these general permissive effects, dopamine (acting via D1 receptors) and norepinephrine (acting at several receptors) can, at optimal levels, enhance working memory and aspects of attention.
  20. Jump up^ Bidwell LC, McClernon FJ, Kollins SH (August 2011). “Cognitive enhancers for the treatment of ADHD”. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 99 (2): 262–274. PMC 3353150Freely accessible. PMID 21596055. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2011.05.002.
  21. Jump up^ Parker J, Wales G, Chalhoub N, Harpin V (September 2013). “The long-term outcomes of interventions for the management of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials”. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 6: 87–99. PMC 3785407Freely accessible. PMID 24082796. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S49114.Only one paper53 examining outcomes beyond 36 months met the review criteria. … There is high level evidence suggesting that pharmacological treatment can have a major beneficial effect on the core symptoms of ADHD (hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity) in approximately 80% of cases compared with placebo controls, in the short term.
  22. Jump up^ Millichap JG (2010). “Chapter 9: Medications for ADHD”. In Millichap JG. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Handbook: A Physician’s Guide to ADHD (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Springer. pp. 111–113. ISBN 9781441913968.
  23. Jump up^ “Stimulants for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder”. WebMD. Healthwise. 12 April 2010. Retrieved 12 November 2013.
  24. Jump up^ Scholten RJ, Clarke M, Hetherington J (August 2005). “The Cochrane Collaboration”. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 59 Suppl 1: S147–S149; discussion S195–S196. PMID 16052183. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602188.
  25. ^ Jump up to:a b Castells X, Ramos-Quiroga JA, Bosch R, Nogueira M, Casas M (June 2011). Castells X, ed. “Amphetamines for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adults”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (6): CD007813. PMID 21678370. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007813.pub2.
  26. Jump up^ Punja S, Shamseer L, Hartling L, Urichuk L, Vandermeer B, Nikles J, Vohra S (February 2016). “Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2: CD009996. PMID 26844979. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009996.pub2.
  27. Jump up^ Pringsheim T, Steeves T (April 2011). Pringsheim T, ed. “Pharmacological treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children with comorbid tic disorders”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (4): CD007990. PMID 21491404. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007990.pub2.
  28. ^ Jump up to:a b http://www.shire.com/shireplc/en/rd/pipeline
  29. ^ Jump up to:a b Spencer RC, Devilbiss DM, Berridge CW (June 2015). “The Cognition-Enhancing Effects of Psychostimulants Involve Direct Action in the Prefrontal Cortex”. Biol. Psychiatry. 77 (11): 940–950. PMC 4377121Freely accessible. PMID 25499957. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.09.013.The procognitive actions of psychostimulants are only associated with low doses. Surprisingly, despite nearly 80 years of clinical use, the neurobiology of the procognitive actions of psychostimulants has only recently been systematically investigated. Findings from this research unambiguously demonstrate that the cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve the preferential elevation of catecholamines in the PFC and the subsequent activation of norepinephrine α2 and dopamine D1 receptors. … This differential modulation of PFC-dependent processes across dose appears to be associated with the differential involvement of noradrenergic α2 versus α1 receptors. Collectively, this evidence indicates that at low, clinically relevant doses, psychostimulants are devoid of the behavioral and neurochemical actions that define this class of drugs and instead act largely as cognitive enhancers (improving PFC-dependent function). … In particular, in both animals and humans, lower doses maximally improve performance in tests of working memory and response inhibition, whereas maximal suppression of overt behavior and facilitation of attentional processes occurs at higher doses.
  30. Jump up^ Ilieva IP, Hook CJ, Farah MJ (January 2015). “Prescription Stimulants’ Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis”. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 27: 1–21. PMID 25591060. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00776.Specifically, in a set of experiments limited to high-quality designs, we found significant enhancement of several cognitive abilities. … The results of this meta-analysis … do confirm the reality of cognitive enhancing effects for normal healthy adults in general, while also indicating that these effects are modest in size.
  31. Jump up^ Bagot KS, Kaminer Y (April 2014). “Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review”. Addiction. 109 (4): 547–557. PMC 4471173Freely accessible. PMID 24749160. doi:10.1111/add.12460.Amphetamine has been shown to improve consolidation of information (0.02 ≥ P ≤ 0.05), leading to improved recall.
  32. Jump up^ Devous MD, Trivedi MH, Rush AJ (April 2001). “Regional cerebral blood flow response to oral amphetamine challenge in healthy volunteers”. J. Nucl. Med. 42 (4): 535–542. PMID 11337538.
  33. Jump up^ Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 10: Neural and Neuroendocrine Control of the Internal Milieu”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 266. ISBN 9780071481274.Dopamine acts in the nucleus accumbens to attach motivational significance to stimuli associated with reward.
  34. ^ Jump up to:a b c Wood S, Sage JR, Shuman T, Anagnostaras SG (January 2014). “Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation”. Pharmacol. Rev. 66 (1): 193–221. PMID 24344115. doi:10.1124/pr.112.007054.
  35. Jump up^ Twohey M (26 March 2006). “Pills become an addictive study aid”. JS Online. Archived from the original on 15 August 2007. Retrieved 2 December 2007.
  36. Jump up^ Teter CJ, McCabe SE, LaGrange K, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ (October 2006). “Illicit use of specific prescription stimulants among college students: prevalence, motives, and routes of administration”. Pharmacotherapy. 26 (10): 1501–1510. PMC 1794223Freely accessible. PMID 16999660. doi:10.1592/phco.26.10.1501.
  37. Jump up^ Weyandt LL, Oster DR, Marraccini ME, Gudmundsdottir BG, Munro BA, Zavras BM, Kuhar B (September 2014). “Pharmacological interventions for adolescents and adults with ADHD: stimulant and nonstimulant medications and misuse of prescription stimulants”. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 7: 223–249. PMC 4164338Freely accessible. PMID 25228824. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S47013.misuse of prescription stimulants has become a serious problem on college campuses across the US and has been recently documented in other countries as well. … Indeed, large numbers of students claim to have engaged in the nonmedical use of prescription stimulants, which is reflected in lifetime prevalence rates of prescription stimulant misuse ranging from 5% to nearly 34% of students.
  38. Jump up^ Clemow DB, Walker DJ (September 2014). “The potential for misuse and abuse of medications in ADHD: a review”. Postgrad. Med. 126 (5): 64–81. PMID 25295651. doi:10.3810/pgm.2014.09.2801.Overall, the data suggest that ADHD medication misuse and diversion are common health care problems for stimulant medications, with the prevalence believed to be approximately 5% to 10% of high school students and 5% to 35% of college students, depending on the study.
  39. ^ Jump up to:a b c Liddle DG, Connor DJ (June 2013). “Nutritional supplements and ergogenic AIDS”. Prim. Care. 40 (2): 487–505. PMID 23668655. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2013.02.009.Amphetamines and caffeine are stimulants that increase alertness, improve focus, decrease reaction time, and delay fatigue, allowing for an increased intensity and duration of training …
    Physiologic and performance effects
    • Amphetamines increase dopamine/norepinephrine release and inhibit their reuptake, leading to central nervous system (CNS) stimulation
    • Amphetamines seem to enhance athletic performance in anaerobic conditions 39 40
    • Improved reaction time
    • Increased muscle strength and delayed muscle fatigue
    • Increased acceleration
    • Increased alertness and attention to task
  40. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Westfall DP, Westfall TC (2010). “Miscellaneous Sympathomimetic Agonists”. In Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollmann BC. Goodman & Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (12th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780071624428.
  41. Jump up^ Bracken NM (January 2012). “National Study of Substance Use Trends Among NCAA College Student-Athletes” (PDF). NCAA Publications. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved 8 October 2013.
  42. Jump up^ Docherty JR (June 2008). “Pharmacology of stimulants prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)”. Br. J. Pharmacol. 154 (3): 606–622. PMC 2439527Freely accessible. PMID 18500382. doi:10.1038/bjp.2008.124.
  43. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Parr JW (July 2011). “Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and the athlete: new advances and understanding”. Clin. Sports Med. 30 (3): 591–610. PMID 21658550. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2011.03.007.In 1980, Chandler and Blair47 showed significant increases in knee extension strength, acceleration, anaerobic capacity, time to exhaustion during exercise, pre-exercise and maximum heart rates, and time to exhaustion during maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) testing after administration of 15 mg of dextroamphetamine versus placebo. Most of the information to answer this question has been obtained in the past decade through studies of fatigue rather than an attempt to systematically investigate the effect of ADHD drugs on exercise.
  44. ^ Jump up to:a b c Roelands B, de Koning J, Foster C, Hettinga F, Meeusen R (May 2013). “Neurophysiological determinants of theoretical concepts and mechanisms involved in pacing”. Sports Med. 43 (5): 301–311. PMID 23456493. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0030-4.In high-ambient temperatures, dopaminergic manipulations clearly improve performance. The distribution of the power output reveals that after dopamine reuptake inhibition, subjects are able to maintain a higher power output compared with placebo. … Dopaminergic drugs appear to override a safety switch and allow athletes to use a reserve capacity that is ‘off-limits’ in a normal (placebo) situation.
  45. Jump up^ Parker KL, Lamichhane D, Caetano MS, Narayanan NS (October 2013). “Executive dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease and timing deficits”. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 7: 75. PMC 3813949Freely accessible. PMID 24198770. doi:10.3389/fnint.2013.00075.Manipulations of dopaminergic signaling profoundly influence interval timing, leading to the hypothesis that dopamine influences internal pacemaker, or “clock,” activity. For instance, amphetamine, which increases concentrations of dopamine at the synaptic cleft advances the start of responding during interval timing, whereas antagonists of D2 type dopamine receptors typically slow timing;… Depletion of dopamine in healthy volunteers impairs timing, while amphetamine releases synaptic dopamine and speeds up timing.
  46. Jump up^ Rattray B, Argus C, Martin K, Northey J, Driller M (March 2015). “Is it time to turn our attention toward central mechanisms for post-exertional recovery strategies and performance?”. Front. Physiol. 6: 79. PMC 4362407Freely accessible. PMID 25852568. doi:10.3389/fphys.2015.00079.Aside from accounting for the reduced performance of mentally fatigued participants, this model rationalizes the reduced RPE and hence improved cycling time trial performance of athletes using a glucose mouthwash (Chambers et al., 2009) and the greater power output during a RPE matched cycling time trial following amphetamine ingestion (Swart, 2009). … Dopamine stimulating drugs are known to enhance aspects of exercise performance (Roelands et al., 2008)
  47. Jump up^ Roelands B, De Pauw K, Meeusen R (June 2015). “Neurophysiological effects of exercise in the heat”. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 25 Suppl 1: 65–78. PMID 25943657. doi:10.1111/sms.12350.This indicates that subjects did not feel they were producing more power and consequently more heat. The authors concluded that the “safety switch” or the mechanisms existing in the body to prevent harmful effects are overridden by the drug administration (Roelands et al., 2008b). Taken together, these data indicate strong ergogenic effects of an increased DA concentration in the brain, without any change in the perception of effort.
  48. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g “Adderall XR Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. December 2013. p. 11. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  49. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l “Adderall XR Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. December 2013. pp. 4–8. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  50. ^ Jump up to:a b c d “Vyvanse Prescribing Information” (PDF). Shire Inc. Retrieved 1 July 2014.
  51. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Heedes G; Ailakis J. “Amphetamine (PIM 934)”. INCHEM. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Retrieved 24 June 2014.
  52. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g “Adderall XR Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. December 2013. pp. 4–6. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  53. Jump up^ “FDA Pregnancy Categories” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. 21 October 2004. Retrieved 31 October 2013.
  54. Jump up^ “Dexamphetamine tablets”. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Retrieved 12 April 2014.
  55. ^ Jump up to:a b Vitiello B (April 2008). “Understanding the risk of using medications for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with respect to physical growth and cardiovascular function”. Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 17 (2): 459–474. PMC 2408826Freely accessible. PMID 18295156. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2007.11.010.
  56. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f “Dyanavel XR Prescribing Information” (PDF). Tris Pharmaceuticals. October 2015. pp. 1–16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 October 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2015.DYANAVEL XR contains d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine in a ratio of 3.2 to 1 … The most common (≥2% in the DYANAVEL XR group and greater than placebo) adverse reactions reported in the Phase 3 controlled study conducted in 108 patients with ADHD (aged 6–12 years) were: epistaxis, allergic rhinitis and upper abdominal pain. …
    DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS
    Extended-release oral suspension contains 2.5 mg amphetamine base per mL.
  57. Jump up^ Ramey JT, Bailen E, Lockey RF (2006). “Rhinitis medicamentosa” (PDF). J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol. 16 (3): 148–155. PMID 16784007. Retrieved 29 April 2015.Table 2. Decongestants Causing Rhinitis Medicamentosa
    – Nasal decongestants:
    – Sympathomimetic:
    • Amphetamine
  58. ^ Jump up to:a b “FDA Drug Safety Communication: Safety Review Update of Medications used to treat Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children and young adults”. United States Food and Drug Administration. 20 December 2011. Retrieved 4 November 2013.
  59. Jump up^ Cooper WO, Habel LA, Sox CM, Chan KA, Arbogast PG, Cheetham TC, Murray KT, Quinn VP, Stein CM, Callahan ST, Fireman BH, Fish FA, Kirshner HS, O’Duffy A, Connell FA, Ray WA (November 2011). “ADHD drugs and serious cardiovascular events in children and young adults”. N. Engl. J. Med. 365 (20): 1896–1904. PMC 4943074Freely accessible. PMID 22043968. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1110212.
  60. ^ Jump up to:a b “FDA Drug Safety Communication: Safety Review Update of Medications used to treat Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adults”. United States Food and Drug Administration. 15 December 2011. Retrieved 4 November 2013.
  61. Jump up^ Habel LA, Cooper WO, Sox CM, Chan KA, Fireman BH, Arbogast PG, Cheetham TC, Quinn VP, Dublin S, Boudreau DM, Andrade SE, Pawloski PA, Raebel MA, Smith DH, Achacoso N, Uratsu C, Go AS, Sidney S, Nguyen-Huynh MN, Ray WA, Selby JV (December 2011). “ADHD medications and risk of serious cardiovascular events in young and middle-aged adults”. JAMA. 306 (24): 2673–2683. PMC 3350308Freely accessible. PMID 22161946. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1830.
  62. Jump up^ Montgomery KA (June 2008). “Sexual desire disorders”. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 5 (6): 50–55. PMC 2695750Freely accessible. PMID 19727285.
  63. Jump up^ O’Connor PG (February 2012). “Amphetamines”. Merck Manual for Health Care Professionals. Merck. Retrieved 8 May 2012.
  64. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Shoptaw SJ, Kao U, Ling W (January 2009). Shoptaw SJ, Ali R, ed. “Treatment for amphetamine psychosis”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (1): CD003026. PMID 19160215. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003026.pub3.A minority of individuals who use amphetamines develop full-blown psychosis requiring care at emergency departments or psychiatric hospitals. In such cases, symptoms of amphetamine psychosis commonly include paranoid and persecutory delusions as well as auditory and visual hallucinations in the presence of extreme agitation. More common (about 18%) is for frequent amphetamine users to report psychotic symptoms that are sub-clinical and that do not require high-intensity intervention …
    About 5–15% of the users who develop an amphetamine psychosis fail to recover completely (Hofmann 1983) …
    Findings from one trial indicate use of antipsychotic medications effectively resolves symptoms of acute amphetamine psychosis.
  65. ^ Jump up to:a b Greydanus D. “Stimulant Misuse: Strategies to Manage a Growing Problem” (PDF). American College Health Association (Review Article). ACHA Professional Development Program. p. 20. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 November 2013. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
  66. ^ Jump up to:a b Childs E, de Wit H (May 2009). “Amphetamine-induced place preference in humans”. Biol. Psychiatry. 65 (10): 900–904. PMC 2693956Freely accessible. PMID 19111278. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.016.This study demonstrates that humans, like nonhumans, prefer a place associated with amphetamine administration. These findings support the idea that subjective responses to a drug contribute to its ability to establish place conditioning.
  67. ^ Jump up to:a b Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 15: Reinforcement and Addictive Disorders”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 364–375. ISBN 9780071481274.
  68. ^ Jump up to:a b Spiller HA, Hays HL, Aleguas A (June 2013). “Overdose of drugs for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: clinical presentation, mechanisms of toxicity, and management”. CNS Drugs. 27 (7): 531–543. PMID 23757186. doi:10.1007/s40263-013-0084-8.Amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate act as substrates for the cellular monoamine transporter, especially the dopamine transporter (DAT) and less so the norepinephrine (NET) and serotonin transporter. The mechanism of toxicity is primarily related to excessive extracellular dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin.
  69. Jump up^ Collaborators (2015). “Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013” (PDF). Lancet. 385 (9963): 117–171. PMC 4340604Freely accessible. PMID 25530442. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61682-2. Retrieved 3 March 2015.Amphetamine use disorders … 3,788 (3,425–4,145)
  70. Jump up^ Kanehisa Laboratories (10 October 2014). “Amphetamine – Homo sapiens (human)”. KEGG Pathway. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
  71. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Nechifor M (March 2008). “Magnesium in drug dependences”. Magnes. Res. 21 (1): 5–15. PMID 18557129.
  72. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Ruffle JK (November 2014). “Molecular neurobiology of addiction: what’s all the (Δ)FosB about?”. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse. 40 (6): 428–437. PMID 25083822. doi:10.3109/00952990.2014.933840.ΔFosB is an essential transcription factor implicated in the molecular and behavioral pathways of addiction following repeated drug exposure.
  73. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Nestler EJ (December 2013). “Cellular basis of memory for addiction”. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 15 (4): 431–443. PMC 3898681Freely accessible. PMID 24459410.Despite the importance of numerous psychosocial factors, at its core, drug addiction involves a biological process: the ability of repeated exposure to a drug of abuse to induce changes in a vulnerable brain that drive the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs, and loss of control over drug use, that define a state of addiction. … A large body of literature has demonstrated that such ΔFosB induction in D1-type [nucleus accumbens] neurons increases an animal’s sensitivity to drug as well as natural rewards and promotes drug self-administration, presumably through a process of positive reinforcement … Another ΔFosB target is cFos: as ΔFosB accumulates with repeated drug exposure it represses c-Fos and contributes to the molecular switch whereby ΔFosB is selectively induced in the chronic drug-treated state.41. … Moreover, there is increasing evidence that, despite a range of genetic risks for addiction across the population, exposure to sufficiently high doses of a drug for long periods of time can transform someone who has relatively lower genetic loading into an addict.
  74. Jump up^ Robison AJ, Nestler EJ (November 2011). “Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction”. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 12 (11): 623–637. PMC 3272277Freely accessible. PMID 21989194. doi:10.1038/nrn3111.ΔFosB serves as one of the master control proteins governing this structural plasticity.
  75. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Olsen CM (December 2011). “Natural rewards, neuroplasticity, and non-drug addictions”. Neuropharmacology. 61 (7): 1109–1122. PMC 3139704Freely accessible. PMID 21459101. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.03.010.Similar to environmental enrichment, studies have found that exercise reduces self-administration and relapse to drugs of abuse (Cosgrove et al., 2002; Zlebnik et al., 2010). There is also some evidence that these preclinical findings translate to human populations, as exercise reduces withdrawal symptoms and relapse in abstinent smokers (Daniel et al., 2006; Prochaska et al., 2008), and one drug recovery program has seen success in participants that train for and compete in a marathon as part of the program (Butler, 2005). … In humans, the role of dopamine signaling in incentive-sensitization processes has recently been highlighted by the observation of a dopamine dysregulation syndrome in some patients taking dopaminergic drugs. This syndrome is characterized by a medication-induced increase in (or compulsive) engagement in non-drug rewards such as gambling, shopping, or sex (Evans et al., 2006; Aiken, 2007; Lader, 2008).
  76. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Lynch WJ, Peterson AB, Sanchez V, Abel J, Smith MA (September 2013). “Exercise as a novel treatment for drug addiction: a neurobiological and stage-dependent hypothesis”. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37 (8): 1622–1644. PMC 3788047Freely accessible. PMID 23806439. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.06.011.These findings suggest that exercise may “magnitude”-dependently prevent the development of an addicted phenotype possibly by blocking/reversing behavioral and neuroadaptive changes that develop during and following extended access to the drug. … Exercise has been proposed as a treatment for drug addiction that may reduce drug craving and risk of relapse. Although few clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of exercise for preventing relapse, the few studies that have been conducted generally report a reduction in drug craving and better treatment outcomes … Taken together, these data suggest that the potential benefits of exercise during relapse, particularly for relapse to psychostimulants, may be mediated via chromatin remodeling and possibly lead to greater treatment outcomes.
  77. ^ Jump up to:a b c Zhou Y, Zhao M, Zhou C, Li R (July 2015). “Sex differences in drug addiction and response to exercise intervention: From human to animal studies”. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 40: 24–41. PMID 26182835. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2015.07.001.Collectively, these findings demonstrate that exercise may serve as a substitute or competition for drug abuse by changing ΔFosB or cFos immunoreactivity in the reward system to protect against later or previous drug use. … The postulate that exercise serves as an ideal intervention for drug addiction has been widely recognized and used in human and animal rehabilitation.
  78. ^ Jump up to:a b c Linke SE, Ussher M (January 2015). “Exercise-based treatments for substance use disorders: evidence, theory, and practicality”. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse. 41 (1): 7–15. PMC 4831948Freely accessible. PMID 25397661. doi:10.3109/00952990.2014.976708.The limited research conducted suggests that exercise may be an effective adjunctive treatment for SUDs. In contrast to the scarce intervention trials to date, a relative abundance of literature on the theoretical and practical reasons supporting the investigation of this topic has been published. … numerous theoretical and practical reasons support exercise-based treatments for SUDs, including psychological, behavioral, neurobiological, nearly universal safety profile, and overall positive health effects.
  79. ^ Jump up to:a b Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 15: Reinforcement and Addictive Disorders”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 386. ISBN 9780071481274.Currently, cognitive–behavioral therapies are the most successful treatment available for preventing the relapse of psychostimulant use.
  80. Jump up^ Greene SL, Kerr F, Braitberg G (October 2008). “Review article: amphetamines and related drugs of abuse”. Emerg. Med. Australas. 20 (5): 391–402. PMID 18973636. doi:10.1111/j.1742-6723.2008.01114.x.
  81. Jump up^ Albertson TE (2011). “Amphetamines”. In Olson KR, Anderson IB, Benowitz NL, Blanc PD, Kearney TE, Kim-Katz SY, Wu AH. Poisoning & Drug Overdose (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 77–79. ISBN 9780071668330.
  82. Jump up^ “Glossary of Terms”. Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Department of Neuroscience. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
  83. Jump up^ Volkow ND, Koob GF, McLellan AT (January 2016). “Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction”. N. Engl. J. Med. 374 (4): 363–371. PMID 26816013. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1511480.Substance-use disorder: A diagnostic term in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) referring to recurrent use of alcohol or other drugs that causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems, disability, and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, school, or home. Depending on the level of severity, this disorder is classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
    Addiction: A term used to indicate the most severe, chronic stage of substance-use disorder, in which there is a substantial loss of self-control, as indicated by compulsive drug taking despite the desire to stop taking the drug. In the DSM-5, the term addiction is synonymous with the classification of severe substance-use disorder.
  84. Jump up^ Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 15: Reinforcement and Addictive Disorders”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 368. ISBN 9780071481274.Such agents also have important therapeutic uses; cocaine, for example, is used as a local anesthetic (Chapter 2), and amphetamines and methylphenidate are used in low doses to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and in higher doses to treat narcolepsy (Chapter 12). Despite their clinical uses, these drugs are strongly reinforcing, and their long-term use at high doses is linked with potential addiction, especially when they are rapidly administered or when high-potency forms are given.
  85. Jump up^ Kollins SH (May 2008). “A qualitative review of issues arising in the use of psycho-stimulant medications in patients with ADHD and co-morbid substance use disorders”. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 24 (5): 1345–1357. PMID 18384709. doi:10.1185/030079908X280707.When oral formulations of psychostimulants are used at recommended doses and frequencies, they are unlikely to yield effects consistent with abuse potential in patients with ADHD.
  86. Jump up^ Stolerman IP (2010). Stolerman IP, ed. Encyclopedia of Psychopharmacology. Berlin, Germany; London, England: Springer. p. 78. ISBN 9783540686989.
  87. Jump up^ Coghill DR, Caballero B, Sorooshian S, Civil R (June 2014). “A systematic review of the safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate”. CNS Drugs. 28 (6): 497–511. PMC 4057639Freely accessible. PMID 24788672. doi:10.1007/s40263-014-0166-2.The prodrug formulation of LDX may also lead to reduced abuse potential of LDX compared with immediate-release d-AMP.
  88. Jump up^ “Amphetamines: Drug Use and Abuse”. Merck Manual Home Edition. Merck. February 2003. Archived from the original on 17 February 2007. Retrieved 28 February 2007.
  89. Jump up^ Perez-Mana C, Castells X, Torrens M, Capella D, Farre M (September 2013). Pérez-Mañá C, ed. “Efficacy of psychostimulant drugs for amphetamine abuse or dependence”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 9: CD009695. PMID 23996457. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009695.pub2.
  90. Jump up^ Hyman SE, Malenka RC, Nestler EJ (July 2006). “Neural mechanisms of addiction: the role of reward-related learning and memory”. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 29: 565–598. PMID 16776597. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113009.
  91. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Robison AJ, Nestler EJ (November 2011). “Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction”. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 12 (11): 623–637. PMC 3272277Freely accdssible. PLID 21989194. doi:10.1038/nrn3111.
  92. ^ Jump up to:a b <` href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisdexamfetamine#cite_ref-@ddiction_genetics_101-2″&gt;c d <` href=”httpr://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisdexamfetamine#cite_ref-Addiction_genetics_101-4″>e Rteiner H, Van Waes V (January 2013). “Addiction-related gene regulation: risks of exposure to cognitive enhancers vs. other psychostimulants”. Prog. Neurobiol. 100: 60–80. PMC 3525776Freely accessible. PMID 23085425. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.10.001.
  93. Jump up^ Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 4: Signal Transduction in the Brain”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 94. ISBN 9780071481274.
  94. Jump up^ Kanehisa Laboratories (29 October 2014). “Alcoholism – Homo sapiens (human)”. KEGG Pathway. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
  95. Jump up^ Kim Y, Teylan MA, Baron M, Sands A, Nairn AC, Greengard P (February 2009). “Methylphenidate-induced dendritic spine formation and DeltaFosB expression in nucleus accumbens”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (8): 2915–2920. PMC 2650365Freely accessible. PMID 19202072. doi:10.1073/pnas.0813179106.
  96. Jump up^ Nestler EJ (January 2014). “Epigenetic mechanisms of drug addiction”. Neuropharmacology. 76 Pt B: 259–268. PMC 3766384Freely accessible. PMID 23643695. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.004.
  97. ^ Jump up to:a b Blum K, Werner T, Carnes S, Carnes P, Bowirrat A, Giordano J, Oscar-Berman M, Gold M (March 2012). “Sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll: hypothesizing common mesolimbic activation as a function of reward gene polymorphisms”. J. Psychoactive Drugs. 44 (1): 38–55. PMC 4040958Freely accessible. PMID 22641964. doi:10.1080/02791072.2012.662112.
  98. Jump up^ Pitchers KK, Vialou V, Nestler EJ, Laviolette SR, Lehman MN, Coolen LM (February 2013). “Natural and drug rewards act on common neural plasticity mechanisms with ΔFosB as a key mediator”. J. Neurosci. 33 (8): 3434–3442. PMC 3865508Freely accessible. PMID 23426671. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4881-12.2013.
  99. Jump up^ Beloate LN, Weems PW, Casey GR, Webb IC, Coolen LM (February 2016). “Nucleus accumbens NMDA receptor activation regulates amphetamine cross-sensitization and deltaFosB expression following sexual experience in male rats”. Neuropharmacology. 101: 154–164. PMID 26391065. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.09.023.
  100. Jump up^ Stoops WW, Rush CR (May 2014). “Combination pharmacotherapies for stimulant use disorder: a review of clinical findings and recommendations for future research”. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 7 (3): 363–374. PMC 4017926Freely accessible. PMID 24716825. doi:10.1586/17512433.2014.909283.Despite concerted efforts to identify a pharmacotherapy for managing stimulant use disorders, no widely effective medications have been approved.
  101. Jump up^ Perez-Mana C, Castells X, Torrens M, Capella D, Farre M (September 2013). “Efficacy of psychostimulant drugs for amphetamine abuse or dependence”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 9: CD009695. PMID 23996457. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009695.pub2.To date, no pharmacological treatment has been approved for [addiction], and psychotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment. … Results of this review do not support the use of psychostimulant medications at the tested doses as a replacement therapy
  102. Jump up^ Forray A, Sofuoglu M (February 2014). “Future pharmacological treatments for substance use disorders”. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 77 (2): 382–400. PMC 4014020Freely accessible. PMID 23039267. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04474.x.
  103. ^ Jump up to:a b Grandy DK, Miller GM, Li JX (February 2016). “”TAARgeting Addiction”-The Alamo Bears Witness to Another Revolution: An Overview of the Plenary Symposium of the 2015 Behavior, Biology and Chemistry Conference”. Drug Alcohol Depend. 159: 9–16. PMID 26644139. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.11.014.When considered together with the rapidly growing literature in the field a compelling case emerges in support of developing TAAR1-selective agonists as medications for preventing relapse to psychostimulant abuse.
  104. ^ Jump up to:a b Jing L, Li JX (August 2015). “Trace amine-associated receptor 1: A promising target for the treatment of psychostimulant addiction”. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 761: 345–352. PMC 4532615Freely accessible. PMID 26092759. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.06.019.Existing data provided robust preclinical evidence supporting the development of TAAR1 agonists as potential treatment for psychostimulant abuse and addiction.
  105. ^ Jump up to:a b Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 5: Excitatory and Inhibitory Amino Acids”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 124–125. ISBN 9780071481274.
  106. ^ Jump up to:a b c Carroll ME, Smethells JR (February 2016). “Sex Differences in Behavioral Dyscontrol: Role in Drug Addiction and Novel Treatments”. Front. Psychiatry. 6: 175. PMC 4745113Freely accessible. PMID 26903885. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00175.Physical Exercise
    There is accelerating evidence that physical exercise is a useful treatment for preventing and reducing drug addiction … In some individuals, exercise has its own rewarding effects, and a behavioral economic interaction may occur, such that physical and social rewards of exercise can substitute for the rewarding effects of drug abuse. … The value of this form of treatment for drug addiction in laboratory animals and humans is that exercise, if it can substitute for the rewarding effects of drugs, could be self-maintained over an extended period of time. Work to date in [laboratory animals and humans] regarding exercise as a treatment for drug addiction supports this hypothesis. … Animal and human research on physical exercise as a treatment for stimulant addiction indicates that this is one of the most promising treatments on the horizon.
  107. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Shoptaw SJ, Kao U, Heinzerling K, Ling W (April 2009). Shoptaw SJ, ed. “Treatment for amphetamine withdrawal”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (2): CD003021. PMID 19370579. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003021.pub2.
  108. Jump up^ “Dexedrine Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Amedra Pharmaceuticals LLC. October 2013. Retrieved 4 November 2013.
  109. Jump up^ “Adderall IR Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. October 2015. Retrieved 18 May 2016.
  110. Jump up^ “Adderall XR Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  111. Jump up^ Advokat C (July 2007). “Update on amphetamine neurotoxicity and its relevance to the treatment of ADHD”. J. Atten. Disord. 11 (1): 8–16. PMID 17606768. doi:10.1177/1087054706295605.
  112. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bowyer JF, Hanig JP (November 2014). “Amphetamine- and methamphetamine-induced hyperthermia: Implications of the effects produced in brain vasculature and peripheral organs to forebrain neurotoxicity”. Temperature (Austin). 1 (3): 172–182. PMC 5008711Freely accessible. PMID 27626044. doi:10.4161/23328940.2014.982049.Hyperthermia alone does not produce amphetamine-like neurotoxicity but AMPH and METH exposures that do not produce hyperthermia (≥40°C) are minimally neurotoxic. Hyperthermia likely enhances AMPH and METH neurotoxicity directly through disruption of protein function, ion channels and enhanced ROS production. … The hyperthermia and the hypertension produced by high doses amphetamines are a primary cause of transient breakdowns in the blood-brain barrier (BBB) resulting in concomitant regional neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation in laboratory animals. … In animal models that evaluate the neurotoxicity of AMPH and METH, it is quite clear that hyperthermia is one of the essential components necessary for the production of histological signs of dopamine terminal damage and neurodegeneration in cortex, striatum, thalamus and hippocampus.
  113. Jump up^ “Amphetamine”. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. United States National Library of Medicine – Toxicology Data Network. Retrieved 26 February 2014.Direct toxic damage to vessels seems unlikely because of the dilution that occurs before the drug reaches the cerebral circulation.
  114. Jump up^ Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). “Chapter 15: Reinforcement and addictive disorders”. In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 370. ISBN 9780071481274.Unlike cocaine and amphetamine, methamphetamine is directly toxic to midbrain dopamine neurons.
  115. Jump up^ Sulzer D, Zecca L (February 2000). “Intraneuronal dopamine-quinone synthesis: a review”. Neurotox. Res. 1 (3): 181–195. PMID 12835101. doi:10.1007/BF03033289.
  116. Jump up^ Miyazaki I, Asanuma M (June 2008). “Dopaminergic neuron-specific oxidative stress caused by dopamine itself” (PDF). Acta Med. Okayama. 62 (3): 141–150. PMID 18596830.
  117. Jump up^ Hofmann FG (1983). A Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse: The Biomedical Aspects (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Oxford University Press. p. 329. ISBN 9780195030570.
  118. ^ Jump up to:a b c d “Adderall XR Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. December 2013. pp. 8–10. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  119. ^ Jump up to:a b “Identification”. Lisdexamfetamine. DrugBank. University of Alberta. 16 September 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2014.
  120. ^ Jump up to:a b c Jasinski DR, Krishnan S (June 2009). “Abuse liability and safety of oral lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in individuals with a history of stimulant abuse”. J. Psychopharmacol. (Oxford). 23 (4): 419–427. PMID 19329547. doi:10.1177/0269881109103113.
  121. ^ Jump up to:a b Miller GM (January 2011). “The emerging role of trace amine-associated receptor 1 in the functional regulation of monoamine transporters and dopaminergic activity”. J. Neurochem. 116 (2): 164–176. PMC 3005101Freely accessible. PMID 21073468. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07109.x.
  122. ^ Jump up to:a b Eiden LE, Weihe E (January 2011). “VMAT2: a dynamic regulator of brain monoaminergic neuronal function interacting with drugs of abuse”. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1216: 86–98. Bibcode:2011NYASA1216…86E. PMC 4183197Freely accessible. PMID 21272013. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05906.x.VMAT2 is the CNS vesicular transporter for not only the biogenic amines DA, NE, EPI, 5-HT, and HIS, but likely also for the trace amines TYR, PEA, and thyronamine (THYR) … [Trace aminergic] neurons in mammalian CNS would be identifiable as neurons expressing VMAT2 for storage, and the biosynthetic enzyme aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC).
  123. Jump up^ “Adderall XR Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. pp. 1–18. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
  124. Jump up^ “Pharmacology”. Dextroamphetamine. DrugBank. University of Alberta. 8 February 2013. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  125. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n “Adderall XR Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. December 2013. pp. 12–13. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  126. Jump up^ “Pharmacology”. Amphetamine. DrugBank. University of Alberta. 8 February 2013. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  127. ^ Jump up to:a b c d “Pharmacology and Biochemistry”. Amphetamine. Pubchem Compound. United States National Library of Medicine – National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  128. ^ Jump up to:a b “Metabolism/Pharmacokinetics”. AMPHETAMINE. United States National Library of Medicine – Toxicology Data Network. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. Retrieved 5 January 2014.Plasma protein binding, rate of absorption, & volumes of distribution of amphetamine isomers are similar. … The biological half-life of amphetamine is greater in drug dependent individuals than in control subjects, & distribution volumes are increased, indicating that greater affinity of tissues for the drug may contribute to development of amphetamine tolerance. … Concentrations of (14)C-amphetamine declined less rapidly in the plasma of human subjects maintained on an alkaline diet (urinary pH > 7.5) than those on an acid diet (urinary pH < 6). Plasma half-lives of amphetamine ranged between 16-31 hr & 8-11 hr, respectively, & the excretion of (14)C in 24 hr urine was 45 & 70%.
  129. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Vyvanse Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. January 2017. pp. 18–21. Retrieved 16 February 2017.
  130. Jump up^ Glennon RA (2013). “Phenylisopropylamine stimulants: amphetamine-related agents”. In Lemke TL, Williams DA, Roche VF, Zito W. Foye’s principles of medicinal chemistry (7th ed.). Philadelphia, USA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 646–648. ISBN 9781609133450.The simplest unsubstituted phenylisopropylamine, 1-phenyl-2-aminopropane, or amphetamine, serves as a common structural template for hallucinogens and psychostimulants. Amphetamine produces central stimulant, anorectic, and sympathomimetic actions, and it is the prototype member of this class (39). … The phase 1 metabolism of amphetamine analogs is catalyzed by two systems: cytochrome P450 and flavin monooxygenase. … Amphetamine can also undergo aromatic hydroxylation to p-hydroxyamphetamine. … Subsequent oxidation at the benzylic position by DA β-hydroxylase affords p-hydroxynorephedrine. Alternatively, direct oxidation of amphetamine by DA β-hydroxylase can afford norephedrine.
  131. Jump up^ Taylor KB (January 1974). “Dopamine-beta-hydroxylase. Stereochemical course of the reaction” (PDF). J. Biol. Chem. 249 (2): 454–458. PMID 4809526. Retrieved 6 November 2014.Dopamine-β-hydroxylase catalyzed the removal of the pro-R hydrogen atom and the production of 1-norephedrine, (2S,1R)-2-amino-1-hydroxyl-1-phenylpropane, from d-amphetamine.
  132. Jump up^ Krueger SK, Williams DE (June 2005). “Mammalian flavin-containing monooxygenases: structure/function, genetic polymorphisms and role in drug metabolism”. Pharmacol. Ther. 106 (3): 357–387. PMC 1828602Freely accessible. PMID 15922018. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2005.01.001.
    Table 5: N-containing drugs and xenobiotics oxygenated by FMO
  133. Jump up^ Cashman JR, Xiong YN, Xu L, Janowsky A (March 1999). “N-oxygenation of amphetamine and methamphetamine by the human flavin-containing monooxygenase (form 3): role in bioactivation and detoxication”. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 288 (3): 1251–1260. PMID 10027866.
  134. ^ Jump up to:a b c Santagati NA, Ferrara G, Marrazzo A, Ronsisvalle G (September 2002). “Simultaneous determination of amphetamine and one of its metabolites by HPLC with electrochemical detection”. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 30 (2): 247–255. PMID 12191709. doi:10.1016/S0731-7085(02)00330-8.
  135. Jump up^ Horwitz D, Alexander RW, Lovenberg W, Keiser HR (May 1973). “Human serum dopamine-β-hydroxylase. Relationship to hypertension and sympathetic activity”. Circ. Res. 32 (5): 594–599. PMID 4713201. doi:10.1161/01.RES.32.5.594.Subjects with exceptionally low levels of serum dopamine-β-hydroxylase activity showed normal cardiovascular function and normal β-hydroxylation of an administered synthetic substrate, hydroxyamphetamine.
  136. ^ Jump up to:a b “Substrate/Product”. butyrate-CoA ligase. BRENDA. Technische Universität Braunschweig. Retrieved 7 May 2014.
  137. ^ Jump up to:a b “Substrate/Product”. glycine N-acyltransferase. BRENDA. Technische Universität Braunschweig. Retrieved 7 May 2014.
  138. Jump up^ “Compound Summary”. p-Hydroxyamphetamine. PubChem Compound. United States National Library of Medicine – National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
  139. Jump up^ “Compound Summary”. p-Hydroxynorephedrine. PubChem Compound. United States National Library of Medicine – National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
  140. Jump up^ “Compound Summary”. Phenylpropanolamine. PubChem Compound. United States National Library of Medicine – National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
  141. Jump up^ “Molecular Weight Calculator”. Lenntech. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  142. ^ Jump up to:a b “Dextroamphetamine Sulfate USP”. Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. March 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  143. ^ Jump up to:a b “D-amphetamine sulfate”. Tocris. 2015. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  144. ^ Jump up to:a b “Amphetamine Sulfate USP”. Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. March 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  145. Jump up^ “Dextroamphetamine Saccharate”. Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. March 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  146. Jump up^ “Amphetamine Aspartate”. Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. March 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  147. Jump up^ “Vyvanse Prescribing Information” (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. Shire US Inc. January 2015. pp. 12–16. Retrieved 24 February 2015.
  148. Jump up^ Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate: A Prodrug Stimulant for the Treatment of ADHD in Children and Adults
  149. Jump up^ FDA Adult Approval of Vyvanse – FDA Label and Approval History
  150. Jump up^ Health Canada Notice of Compliance – Vyvanse. 19 February 2009, retrieved on 9 March 2009.
  151. Jump up^ [1]. 8 February 2012, retrieved on 9 February 2012.
  152. Jump up^ Hirschler, Ben (7 February 2014). “UPDATE 2-Shire scraps Vyvanse for depression after failed trials”. Reuters. Retrieved 13 February 2014.
  153. Jump up^ http://www.shire.com/shireplc/en/investors/irshirenews?id=684
  154. Jump up^ http://www.shire.com/shireplc/en/investors/investorsnews/irshirenews?id=1055
  155. Jump up^ http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm432543.htm
  156. Jump up^ Cassels, Caroline. “FDA Okays Vyvanse for Binge Eating Disorder”. medscape.com. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
  157. Jump up^ “Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products”. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov. Retrieved 14 February 2017.
  158. Jump up^ http://www.shire.com/shireplc/en/investors/investorsnews/irshirenews?id=684
  159. Jump up^ Dale E, Bang-Andersen B, Sánchez C (May 2015). “Emerging mechanisms and treatments for depression beyond SSRIs and SNRIs”. Biochem. Pharmacol. 95 (2): 81–97. PMID 25813654. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2015.03.011.
  160. Jump up^ “Psychostimulants in the therapy of treatment-resistant depression Review of the literature and findings from a retrospective study in 65 depressed patients”. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 1: 165–74. 1999. PMC 3181580Freely accessible. PMID 22034135.
Lisdexamfetamine
Lisdexamfetamine structure.svg
Lisdexamfetamine ball-and-stick model.png
Clinical data
Trade names Tyvense, Elvanse, Venvanse, Vyvanse
AHFS/Drugs.com Monograph
MedlinePlus a607047
License data
Pregnancy
category
  • AU: B3
  • US: C (Risk not ruled out)
Dependence
liability
Physical: none
Psychological: moderate
Addiction
liability
Moderate
Routes of
administration
Oral (capsules)
ATC code
Legal status
Legal status
Pharmacokinetic data
Bioavailability 96.4%[1]
Metabolism Hydrolysis by enzymes in red blood cells initially.
Subsequent metabolism follows Amphetamine#Pharmacokinetics.
Onset of action 2 hours[2][3]
Biological half-life ≤1 hour (prodrug molecule)
9–11 hours (dextroamphetamine)
Duration of action 12 hours[2][3]
Excretion Renal: ~2%
Identifiers
Synonyms Vyvanse
CAS Number
PubChem CID
IUPHAR/BPS
DrugBank
ChemSpider
UNII
ChEMBL
Chemical and physical data
Formula C15H25N3O
Molar mass 263.378 g/mol
3D model (Jmol)

////////

CC(CC1=CC=CC=C1)NC(=O)C(CCCCN)N

Advertisements

FDA approves first subcutaneous C1 Esterase Inhibitor to treat rare genetic disease


06/22/2017

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Haegarda, the first C1 Esterase Inhibitor (Human) for subcutaneous (under the skin) administration to prevent Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) attacks in adolescent and adult patients. The subcutaneous route of administration allows for easier at-home self-injection by the patient or caregiver, once proper training is received.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Haegarda, the first C1 Esterase Inhibitor (Human) for subcutaneous (under the skin) administration to prevent Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) attacks in adolescent and adult patients. The subcutaneous route of administration allows for easier at-home self-injection by the patient or caregiver, once proper training is received.

HAE, which is caused by having insufficient amounts of a plasma protein called C1-esterase inhibitor (or C1-INH), affects approximately 6,000 to 10,000 people in the U.S. People with HAE can develop rapid swelling of the hands, feet, limbs, face, intestinal tract or airway. These attacks of swelling can occur spontaneously, or can be triggered by stress, surgery or infection.

“The approval of Haegarda provides a new treatment option for adolescents and adults with Hereditary Angioedema,” said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “The subcutaneous formulation allows patients to administer the product at home to help prevent attacks.”

Haegarda is a human plasma-derived, purified, pasteurized, lyophilized (freeze-dried) concentrate prepared from large pools of human plasma from U.S. donors. Haegarda is indicated for routine prophylaxis to prevent HAE attacks, but is not indicated for treatment of acute HAE attacks.

The efficacy of Haegarda was demonstrated in a multicenter controlled clinical trial. The study included 90 subjects ranging in age from 12 to 72 years old with symptomatic HAE. Subjects were randomized to receive twice per week subcutaneous doses of either 40 IU/kg or 60 IU/kg, and the treatment effect was compared to a placebo treatment period. During the 16 week treatment period, patients in both treatment groups experienced a significantly reduced number of HAE attacks compared to their placebo treatment period.

The most common side effects included injection site reactions, hypersensitivity (allergic) reactions, nasopharyngitis (swelling of the nasal passages and throat) and dizziness. Haegarda should not be used in individuals who have experienced life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, to a C1-INH preparation or its inactive ingredients.

Haegarda received Orphan Drug designation, which provides incentives to assist and encourage the development of drugs to treat rare diseases or conditions.

The FDA granted approval of Haegarda to CSL Behring LLC.

///////////Haegarda, C1 Esterase inhibitor, CSL Behring LLC,  fda 2017, orphan drug

HNIW, CL 20, 六硝基六氮杂异伍兹烷


Partially condensed, stereo, skeletal formula of hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane ChemSpider 2D Image | HNIW | C6H6N12O12

HNIW, CL-20

  • Molecular FormulaC6H6N12O12
  • Average mass438.185 Da
  • 1,3,4,7,8,10-hexanitrooctahydro-1H-5,2,6-(epiminomethanetriylimino)imidazo[4,5-b]pyrazine
    CAS 135285-90-4
  • Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane
  • 2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazaisowurtzitane
  • Octahydro-1,3,4,7,8,10-hexanitro-5,2,6-(iminomethenimino)-1H-imidazo[4,5-b]pyrazine
  • HNIW
  • 六硝基六氮杂异伍兹烷

ABOUT AUTHOR

Tomasz Gołofit

Thermochemistry, Physical Chemistry, Materials Chemistry

Warsaw University of Technology

Staff Paweł Maksimowski Wincenty Skupiński Wojciech Pawłowski Waldemar Tomaszewski Tomasz Gołofit Katarzyna Cieślak

Faculty of Chemistry, Division of High Energetic Materials, Warsaw University of Technology, Noakowskiego 3, 00-664 Warsaw, Poland

Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane /ˈhɛksɑːˈntrˈhɛksɑːˌæzɑːˌsˈvʊərtsɪtn/, also called HNIW and CL-20, is a nitroamine explosive with the formula C6H6N12O12. The structure of CL-20 was first proposed in 1979 by Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics.[1]In 1980s, CL-20 was developed by the China Lake facility, primarily to be used in propellants. It has a better oxidizer-to-fuel ratio than conventional HMX or RDX. It releases 20% more energy than traditional HMX-based propellants, and is widely superior to conventional high-energy propellants and explosives.

Industrial production of CL-20 was achieved in China in 2011, and it was soon fielded in propellant of solid rockets.[2] While most development of CL-20 has been fielded by the Thiokol Corporation, the US Navy (through ONR) has also been interested in CL-20 for use in rocket propellants, such as for missiles, as it has lower observability characteristics such as less visible smoke.[3]

CL-20 has not yet been fielded in any production weapons system, but is undergoing testing for stability, production capabilities, and other weapons characteristics.

Synthesis

THEN CONVERTED TO CL20, HNIW

Synthesis of CL20, HNIW

Image result for SYNTHESIS OF HNIW

505 Synthesis of CL-20: By oxidative debenzylation with cerium(IV) ammonium nitrate (CAN)

 

IPC: Int.Cl.8 C07D

 

A simple debenzylation approach has been discussed for the synthesis of hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane (HNIW or CL-20) one of the most powerful high explosives of today with cerium ammonium (IV) nitrate.
G M Gore, R Sivabalan*, U R Nair, A Saikia,

S Venugopalan & B R Gandhe

Image result for SYNTHESIS OF HNIW

First, benzylamine (1) is condensed with glyoxal (2) under acidic and dehydrating conditions to yield the first intermediate compound.(3). Four benzyl groups selectively undergo hydrogenolysis using palladium on carbon and hydrogen. The amino groups are then acetylated during the same step using acetic anhydride as the solvent. (4). Finally, compound 4 is reacted with nitronium tetrafluoroborate and nitrosonium tetrafluoroborate, resulting in HNIW.[4]

ChemSpider 2D Image | (3R,9R)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.0~3,11~.0~5,9~]dodecane | C6H6N12O12

(3R,9R)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodecane

  • Molecular FormulaC6H6N12O12
  • Average mass438.185 Da
  • (3R,9R)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodecan
    (3R,9R)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodecane
    (3R,9R)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatétracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodécane
    5,2,6-(Iminomethanetriylimino)-1H-imidazo[4,5-b]pyrazine, octahydro-1,3,4,7,8,10-hexanitro-, (5R,7aR)-

ChemSpider 2D Image | (3R,5S,9R,11S)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.0~3,11~.0~5,9~]dodecane | C6H6N12O12

(3R,5S,9R,11S)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodecane

  • Molecular FormulaC6H6N12O12
  • Average mass438.185 Da
  • (3R,5S,9R,11S)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodecan
    (3R,5S,9R,11S)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodecane
    (3R,5S,9R,11S)-2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatétracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodécane
    5,2,6-(Iminomethanetriylimino)-1H-imidazo[4,5-b]pyrazine, octahydro-1,3,4,7,8,10-hexanitro-, (3aR,5S,6R,7aS)

Cocrystal product with HMX

In August 2012, Onas Bolton et al. published results showing that a cocrystal of 2 parts CL-20 and 1 part HMX had similar safety properties to HMX, but with a greater firing power closer to CL-20. [5][6]

Cocrystal product with TNT

In August 2011, Adam Matzger and Onas Bolton published results showing that a cocrystal of CL-20 and TNT had

The synthesis of 2,4,6,8,10,12-hexabenzyl-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.05,9.03,11]-dodecane (HBIW) is the first stage in the production of 2,4,6,8,10,12-hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.05,9.03,11] dodecane (CL-20), which is the most potent explosive known today. Because of the high performance characteristics of CL-20, a number of research projects are being conducted worldwide on CL-20 synthesis, properties and applications

Scale-Up Synthesis of Hexabenzylhexaazaisowurtzitane, an Intermediate in CL-20 Synthesis

Faculty of Chemistry, Division of High Energetic Materials, Warsaw University of Technology, Noakowskiego 3, 00-664 Warsaw, Poland
Chemical Works “NITRO−CHEM” S.A., Wojska Polskiego 65 A, 85−825 Bydgoszcz, Poland
Org. Process Res. Dev., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.7b00101
Abstract Image

After successful synthesis of hexabenzylhexaazaisowurtzitane (HBIW) on a laboratory scale (0.25 L reactor), it was performed on a multilaboratory scale (10 L reactor) and subsequently in an experimental installation in which a 300 L reactor was built. Seven syntheses were carried out in the unit on a pilot scale to produce 250 kg of HBIW. The pilot-scale syntheses ran with a yield comparable to those observed for the processes conducted on a large-laboratory scale. Some modifications were suggested that allowed for reduction of the HBIW weight unit by approximately 50%

HBIW was 89%. FTIR υ (cm–1): 3022, 2835, 1954, 1669, 1602, 1492, 1451, 1396, 1351, 1302, 1264, 1208, 1169, 1140, 1122, 1072, 1057, 1028, 1017, 986, 926, 896, 828, 792, 781, 749, 732, 698. 1H NMR (CDCl3, 400 MHz): δ 7.39–7.42 (m, 30 H, phenyl CH), 4.33 (s, 4 H, CH2), 4.26–4.27 (d, 8 H, CH2), 4.21 (s, 4 H, CH), 3.75 (s, 2, H, CH).

References

  1. Jump up^ 王征, 和霄雯 (2016-04-19). “北理工的爆轰速度 中国力量的可靠基石”. 北京理工大学新闻网.
  2. Jump up^ 黎轩平 (2016-04-23). ““我们要在宇宙空间占一个位置!””. 北京理工大学新闻网.
  3. Jump up^ Yirka, Bob (9 September 2011). “University chemists devise means to stabilize explosive CL-20”. Physorg.com. Retrieved 8 July 2012.
  4. Jump up^ Nair, U. R.; Sivabalan, R.; Gore, G. M.; Geetha, M.; Asthana, S. N.; Singh, H. (2005). “Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane (CL-20) and CL-20-based formulations (review)”. Combust. Explos. Shock Waves. 41 (2): 121–132. doi:10.1007/s10573-005-0014-2.
  5. Jump up^ High Power Explosive with Good Sensitivity: A 2:1 Cocrystal of CL-20:HMX, Crystal Growth & Design (American Chemical Society), 2012, 12 (9), pp 4311–4314, DOI: 10.1021/cg3010882, Publication Date (Web): August 7, 2012, accessed 7 September 2012
  6. Jump up^ Powerful new explosive could replace today’s state-of-the-art military explosive, SpaceWar.com, 6 September 2012, accessed 7 September 2012
  7. Jump up^ Angewandte Chemie International Edition
  8. Jump up^ Things I Won’t Work With: Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane

Further reading

////////////////CL 20, 135285-90-4, HNIW

Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane
Partially condensed, stereo, skeletal formula of hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane
Ball and stick model of hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane
Names
IUPAC name

2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazatetracyclo[5.5.0.03,11.05,9]dodecane
Other names

  • CL-20
  • Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane
  • 2,4,6,8,10,12-Hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexaazaisowurtzitane
  • Octahydro-1,3,4,7,8,10-hexanitro-5,2,6-(iminomethenimino)-1H-imidazo[4,5-b]pyrazine
  • HNIW
  • Octahydro-1,3,4,7,8,10-hexanitro-5,2,6-(iminomethenimino)-1H-imidazo[4,5-b]pyrazine
    5,2,6-(Iminomethenimino)-1H-imidazo[4,5-b]pyrazine, octahydro-1,3,4,7,8,10-hexanitro-
    isowurtzitane, hexanitrohexaaza-
    Octahydro-1,3,4,7,8,10-hexanitro-5,2,6-(iminomethenimino)-1H-imidazo(4,5-b)pyrazine
Identifiers
3D model (JSmol)
Abbreviations CL-20, HNIW
ChEBI
ChemSpider
ECHA InfoCard 100.114.169
Properties
C
6N
12H
6O
12
Molar mass 438.1850 g mol−1
Density 2.044 g cm−3
Explosive data
Detonation velocity 9.38 km s−1
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
  • 1.Bayat, Y.; Malmir, S.; Hajighasemali, F.; Dehghani, H. Cent. Eur. J. Energy Mater. 2015, 12, 439458
  • 2.Bayat, Y.; Zarandi, M.; Khadiv-Parsi, P.; Salimi, A. Cent. Eur. J. Energy Mater. 2015, 12, 459472
  • 3.Gołofit, T.; Zyśk, K. J. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2015, 119, 19311939, DOI: 10.1007/s10973-015-4418-2
  • 4.Maksimowski, P.; Adamiak, J. Propellants, Explos., Pyrotech. 2010, 35, 353358, DOI: 10.1002/prep.200900057

Lanabecestat (formerly known as AZD3293 or LY3314814)


str1str1

Lanabecestat.svg

str1str1

Lanabecestat

  • Molecular FormulaC26H28N4O
  • Average mass412.527 Da

ChemSpider 2D Image | Lanabecestat | C26H28N4O

Dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-[2H]indene-1′(3′H),2”-[2H]imidazol]-4”-amine, 4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propyn-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]-, (1α,1′R,4β)-

(1r,1’R,4R)-4-Methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propin-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2”-imidazol]-4”-amin
(1r,1’R,4R)-4-Methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propyn-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2”-imidazol]-4”-amine
(lr,l’R,4R)- 4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-l-yn-l-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H- dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden-l’2′-imidazole]-4″-amine
(lr,4r)-4-Methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-(5-prop-l-yn-l-ylpyridin-3-yl)-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane- l,2′-indene-l’,2″-imidazol]- “-amine
CAS 1383982-64-6
AZD3293
Dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-[1H]indene-1′(3’H),2”-[2H]imidazol]-4”-amine, 4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propyn-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]-, (1’R)-
Lanabecestat
LY3314814
UNII:X8SPJ492VF, AZ-12304146
Beta amyloid antagonist; Beta secretase 1 inhibitor; Beta secretase 2 inhibitor
Fast Track
  • (1α,1’R,4β)-4-Methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propyn-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-[2H]indene-1′(3’H),2”-[2H]imidazol]-4”-amine
  • (1,4-trans,1’R)-4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-1-yn-1-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2”-imidazol]-4”-amine
  • (1r,1’R,4R)-4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-1-yn-1-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2”-imidazol]-4”-amine

Lanabecestat (formerly known as AZD3293 or LY3314814) is an oral beta-secretase 1 cleaving enzyme (BACE) inhibitor. A BACE inhibitor in theory would prevent the buildup of beta-amyloid and may help slow or stop the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.

In September 2014, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and Company announced an agreement to co-develop lanabecestat.[1] A pivotal Phase II/III clinical trial of lanabecestat started in late 2014 and is planned to recruit 2,200 patients and end in June 2019.[2] In April 2016 the company announced it would advance to phase 3 without modification.[3]

  • Originator Astex Pharmaceuticals; AstraZeneca
  • Developer AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly
  • Class Antidementias; Imidazoles; Pyridines; Small molecules; Spiro compounds
  • Mechanism of Action Amyloid precursor protein secretase inhibitors
  • Phase III Alzheimer’s disease

Most Recent Events

  • 15 Mar 2017 Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca initiates enrolment in an extension phase III trial for Alzheimer’s Disease (In adults, In the elderly) in USA (PO) (NCT02972658)
  • 25 Jan 2017 Chemical structure information added
  • 12 Jan 2017 Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca initiate enrolment in a phase I pharmacokinetics trial in Healthy volunteers in USA (PO) (NCT03019549
  • Astex Therapeutics Ltd

Image resultImage result for azd 3293

CHEMBL2152914.png

The prime neuropathological event distinguishing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is deposition of the 40-42 residue amyloid β-peptide (Αβ) in brain parenchyma and cerebral vessels. A large body of genetic, biochemical and in vivo data support a pivotal role for Αβ in the pathological cascade that eventually leads to AD. Patients usually present early symptoms (commonly memory loss) in their sixth or seventh decades of life. The disease progresses with increasing dementia and elevated deposition of Αβ. In parallel, a hyperphosphorylated form of the microtubule-associated protein tau accumulates within neurons, leading to a plethora of deleterious effects on neuronal function. The prevailing working hypothesis regarding the temporal relationship between Αβ and tau pathologies states that Αβ deposition precedes tau aggregation in humans and animal models of the disease. Within this context, it is worth noting that the exact molecular nature of Αβ, mediating this pathological function is presently an issue under intense study. Most likely, there is a continuum of toxic species ranging from lower order Αβ oligomers to supramolecular assemblies such as Αβ fibrils. The Αβ peptide is an integral fragment of the Type I protein APP (Αβ amyloid precursor protein), a protein ubiquitously expressed in human tissues. Since soluble Αβ can be found in both plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and in the medium from cultured cells, APP has to undergo proteolysis. There are three main cleavages of APP that are relevant to the pathobiology of AD, the so-called α-, β-, and γ-cleavages. The a-cleavage, which occurs roughly in the middle of the Αβ domain in APP is executed by the metalloproteases AD AMI 0 or AD AMI 7 (the latter also known as TACE). The β-cleavage, occurring at the N terminus of Αβ, is generated by the transmembrane aspartyl protease Beta site APP Cleaving Enzymel (BACE1). The γ-cleavage, generating the Αβ C termini and subsequent release of the peptide, is effected by a multi-subunit aspartyl protease named γ-secretase. ADAM10/17 cleavage followed by γ-secretase cleavage results in the release of the soluble p3 peptide, an N- terminally truncated Αβ fragment that fails to form amyloid deposits in humans. This proteolytic route is commonly referred to as the non-amyloidogenic pathway. Consecutive cleavages by BACE1 and γ-secretase generates the intact Αβ peptide, hence this processing scheme has been termed the amyloidogenic pathway. With this knowledge at hand, it is possible to envision two possible avenues of lowering Αβ production: stimulating non- amyloidogenic processing, or inhibit or modulate amyloidogenic processing. This application focuses on the latter strategy, inhibition or modulation of amyloidogenic processing.

Amyloidogenic plaques and vascular amyloid angiopathy also characterize the brains of patients with Trisomy 21 (Down’s Syndrome), Hereditary Cerebral Hemorrhage with Amyloidosis of the Dutch-type (HCHWA-D), and other neurodegenerative disorders.

Neurofibrillary tangles also occur in other neurodegenerative disorders including dementia- inducing disorders (Varghese, J., et al, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2003, 46, 4625-4630). β-amyloid deposits are predominately an aggregate of AB peptide, which in turn is a product of the proteolysis of amyloid precursor protein (APP). More specifically, AB peptide results from the cleavage of APP at the C-terminus by one or more γ-secretases, and at the N- terminus by B-secretase enzyme (BACE), also known as aspartyl protease or Asp2 or Beta site APP Cleaving Enzyme (BACE), as part of the B-amyloidogenic pathway.

BACE activity is correlated directly to the generation of AB peptide from APP (Sinha, et al, Nature, 1999, 402, 537-540), and studies increasingly indicate that the inhibition of BACE inhibits the production of AB peptide (Roberds, S. L., et al, Human Molecular Genetics, 2001, 10, 1317-1324). BACE is a membrane bound type 1 protein that is

synthesized as a partially active proenzyme, and is abundantly expressed in brain tissue. It is thought to represent the major β-secretase activity, and is considered to be the rate-limiting step in the production of amyloid^-peptide (Αβ).

Drugs that reduce or block BACE activity should therefore reduce Αβ levels and levels of fragments of Αβ in the brain, or elsewhere where Αβ or fragments thereof deposit, and thus slow the formation of amyloid plaques and the progression of AD or other maladies involving deposition of Αβ or fragments thereof. BACE is therefore an important candidate for the development of drugs as a treatment and/or prophylaxis of Αβ-related pathologies such as Down’s syndrome, β-amyloid angiopathy such as but not limited to cerebral amyloid angiopathy or hereditary cerebral hemorrhage, disorders associated with cognitive impairment such as but not limited to MCI (“mild cognitive impairment”), Alzheimer’s Disease, memory loss, attention deficit symptoms associated with Alzheimer’s disease, neurodegeneration associated with diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or dementia including dementia of mixed vascular and degenerative origin, pre-senile dementia, senile dementia and dementia associated with Parkinson’s disease, progressive supranuclear palsy or cortical basal degeneration.

It would therefore be useful to inhibit the deposition of Αβ and portions thereof by inhibiting BACE through inhibitors such as the compounds provided herein.

The therapeutic potential of inhibiting the deposition of Αβ has motivated many groups to isolate and characterize secretase enzymes and to identify their potential inhibitors.

SYNTHESIS

As in WO 2013190302

PATENT

WO 2013190302

EXAMPLES

Example 1

6′-Bromospiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-indene]-l’,4(3’H)-dione

Figure imgf000016_0001

Potassium tert-butoxide (223 g, 1.99 mol) was charged to a 100 L reactor containing a stirred mixture of 6-bromo-l-indanone (8.38 kg, 39.7 mol) in THF (16.75 L) at 20-30 °C. Methyl acrylate (2.33 L, 25.8 mol) was then charged to the mixture during 15 minutes keeping the temperature between 20-30 °C. A solution of potassium tert-butoxide (89.1 g, 0.79 mol) dissolved in THF (400 mL) was added were after methyl acrylate (2.33 L, 25.8 mol) was added during 20 minutes at 20-30 °C. A third portion of potassium tert-butoxide (90 g, 0.80 mol) dissolved in THF (400 mL) was then added, followed by a third addition of methyl acrylate (2.33 L, 25.8 mol) during 20 minutes at 20-30 °C. Potassium tert-butoxide (4.86 kg, 43.3 mol) dissolved in THF (21.9 L) was charged to the reactor during 1 hour at 20-30 °C. The reaction was heated to approximately 65 °C and 23 L of solvent was distilled off. Reaction temperature was lowered to 60 °C and 50% aqueous potassium hydroxide (2.42 L, 31.7 mol) dissolved in water (51.1 L) was added to the mixture during 30 minutes at 55-60 °C were after the mixture was stirred for 6 hours at 60 °C, cooled to 20 °C during 2 hours. After stirring for 12 hours at 20 °C the solid material was filtered off, washed twice with a mixture of water (8.4 L) and THF (4.2 L) and then dried at 50 °C under vacuum to yield 6′- bromospiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-indene]-r,4(3’H)-dione (7.78 kg; 26.6 mol). 1H MR (500 MHz, DMSO-i¾) δ ppm 1.78 – 1.84 (m, 2 H), 1.95 (td, 2 H), 2.32 – 2.38 (m, 2 H), 2.51 – 2.59 (m, 2 H), 3.27 (s, 2 H), 7.60 (d, 1 H), 7.81 (m, 1 H), 7.89 (m, 1 H).

Example 2

(lr,4r)-6′-Bromo-4-methoxyspiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden]-l'(3’H)-one

Figure imgf000016_0002

Borane tert-butylamine complex (845 g, 9.7 mol) dissolved in DCM (3.8 L) was charged to a slurry of 6′-Bromospiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-indene]- ,4(3’H)-dione (7.7 kg, 26.3 mol) in DCM (42.4 L) at approximately 0-5 °C over approximately 25 minutes. The reaction was left with stirring at 0-5°C for 1 hour were after analysis confirmed that the conversion was >98%. A solution prepared from sodium chloride (2.77 kg), water (13.3 L) and 37% hydrochloric acid (2.61 L, 32 mol) was charged. The mixture was warmed to approximately 15 °C and the phases separated after settling into layers. The organic phase was returned to the reactor, together with methyl methanesulfonate (2.68 L, 31.6 mol) and tetrabutylammonium chloride (131 g, 0.47 mol) and the mixture was vigorously agitated at 20 °C. 50% Sodium hydroxide (12.5 L, 236 mol) was then charged to the vigorously agitated reaction mixture over approximately 1 hour and the reaction was left with vigorously agitation overnight at 20 °C. Water (19 L) was added and the aqueous phase discarded after separation. The organic layer was heated to approximately 40 °C and 33 L of solvent were distilled off. Ethanol (21 L) was charged and the distillation resumed with increasing temperature (22 L distilled off at up to 79 °C). Ethanol (13.9 L) was charged at approximately 75 °C. Water (14.6 L) was charged over 30 minutes keeping the temperature between 72-75 °C. Approximately 400 mL of the solution is withdrawn to a 500 mL polythene bottle and the sample crystallised spontaneously. The batch was cooled to 50 °C were the crystallised slurry sample was added back to the solution. The mixture was cooled to 40 °C. The mixture was cooled to 20 °C during 4 hours were after it was stirred overnight. The solid was filtered off , washed with a mixture of ethanol (6.6 L) and water (5 L) and dried at 50 °C under vacuum to yield (lr,4r)-6′-bromo-4- methoxyspiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden]-r(3’H)-one (5.83 kg, 18.9 mol) 1H MR (500 MHz,

DMSO-i¾) δ ppm 1.22-1.32 (m, 2 H), 1.41 – 1.48 (m, 2 H), 1.56 (td, 2 H), 1.99 – 2.07 (m, 2 H), 3.01 (s, 2 H), 3.16 – 3.23 (m, 1 H), 3.27 (s, 3 H), 7.56 (d, 1 H), 7.77 (d, 1 H), 7.86 (dd, 1

H).

Example 3

(lr,4r)-6′-Bromo-4-methoxyspiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden]-l'(3’H)-imine hydrochloride

Figure imgf000017_0001

(lr,4r)-6′-Bromo-4-methoxyspiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden]- (3’H)-one (5.82 kg; 17.7 mol) was charged to a 100 L reactor at ambient temperature followed by titanium (IV)ethoxide (7.4 L; 35.4 mol) and a solution of tert-butylsulfinamide (2.94 kg; 23.0 mol) in 2- methyltetrahydrofuran (13.7 L). The mixture was stirred and heated to 82 °C. After 30 minutes at 82 °C the temperature was increased further (up to 97 °C) and 8 L of solvent was distilled off. The reaction was cooled to 87 °C and 2- methyltetrahydrofuran (8.2 L) was added giving a reaction temperature of 82 °C. The reaction was left with stirring at 82 °C overnight. The reaction temperature was raised (to 97 °C) and 8.5 L of solvent was distilled off. The reaction was cooled down to 87 °C and 2- methyltetrahydrofuran (8.2 L) was added giving a reaction temperature of 82 °C. After 3.5 hours the reaction temperature was increased further (to 97 °C) and 8 L of solvent was distilled off. The reaction was cooled to 87 °C and 2- methyltetrahydrofuran (8.2 L) was added giving a reaction temperature of 82 °C. After 2 hours the reaction temperature was increased further (to 97 °C) and 8.2 L of solvent was distilled off. The reaction was cooled to 87 °C and 2-methyltetrahydrofuran (8.2 L) was added giving a reaction temperature of 82 °C. The reaction was stirred overnight at 82 °C. The reaction temperature was increased further (to 97 °C) and 8 L of solvent was distilled off. The reaction was cooled down to 25 °C. Dichloromethane (16.4 L) was charged. To a separate reactor water (30 L) was added and agitated vigorously and sodium sulfate (7.54 kg) was added and the resulting solution was cooled to 10 °C. Sulfuric acid (2.3 L, 42.4 mol) was added to the water solution and the temperature was adjusted to 20 °C. 6 L of the acidic water solution was withdrawn and saved for later. The organic reaction mixture was charged to the acidic water solution over 5 minutes with good agitation. The organic reaction vessel was washed with dichloromethane (16.4 L), and the dichloromethane wash solution was also added to the acidic water. The mixture was stirred for 15 minutes and then allowed to settle for 20 minutes. The lower aqueous phase was run off, and the saved 6 L of acidic wash was added followed by water (5.5 L). The mixture was stirred for 15 minutes and then allowed to settle for 20 minutes. The lower organic layer was run off to carboys and the upper water layer was discarded. The organic layer was charged back to the vessel followed by sodium sulfate (2.74 kg), and the mixture was agitated for 30 minutes. The sodium sulfate was filtered off and washed with dichloromethane (5.5 L) and the combined organic phases were charged to a clean vessel. The batch was heated for distillation (collected 31 L max temperature 57 °C). The batch was cooled to 40 °C and dichloromethane (16.4 L) was added. The batch was heated for distillation (collected 17 L max temperature 54 °C). The batch was cooled to 20 °C and dichloromethane (5.5 L) and ethanol (2.7 L) were. 2 M hydrogen chloride in diethyl ether (10.6 L; 21.2 mol) was charged to the reaction over 45 minutes keeping the temperature between 16-23 °C. The resulting slurry was stirred at 20 °C for 1 hour whereafter the solid was filtered off and washed 3 times with a 1 : 1 mixture of dichloromethane and diethyl ether (3 x 5.5 L). The solid was dried at 50 °C under vacuum to yield (lr,4r)-6′-bromo-4- methoxyspiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden]-l'(3’H)-imine hydrochloride (6.0 kg; 14.3 mol; assay 82% w/w by 1H MR) 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-i¾) δ ppm 130 (m, 2 H), 1.70 (d, 2 H), 1.98 (m, 2 H), 2.10 (m, 2 H), 3.17 (s, 2 H), 3.23 (m, 1 H), 3.29 (s, 3 H), 7.61 (d, 1 H), 8.04 (dd, 1 H), 8.75 (d, 1 H), 12.90(br s,2H).

Example 4

(lr,4r)-6′-Bromo-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden-l’2′- imidazole]-4″ (3″H)-thione

Figure imgf000019_0001

Trimethylorthoformate (4.95 L; 45.2 mol) and diisopropylethylamine (3.5 L; 20.0 mol) was charged to a reactor containing (lr,4r)-6′-bromo-4-methoxyspiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden]- l'(3’H)-imine hydrochloride (6.25 kg; 14.9 mol) in isopropanol (50.5 L). The reaction mixture was stirred and heated to 75 °C during 1 hour so that a clear solution was obtained. The temperature was set to 70 °C and a 2 M solution of 2-oxopropanethioamide in isopropanol (19.5 kg; 40.6 mol) was charged over 1 hour, were after the reaction was stirred overnight at 69 °C. The batch was seeded with (lr,4r)-6′-bromo-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H- dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden- 2′-imidazole]-4″(3″H)-thione (3 g ; 7.6 mmol) and the temperature was lowered to 60 °C and stirred for 1 hour. The mixture was concentrated by distillation (distillation temperature approximately 60 °C; 31 L distilled off). Water (31 L) was added during 1 hour and 60 °C before the temperature was lowered to 25 °C during 90 minutes were after the mixture was stirred for 3 hours. The solid was filtered off , washed with isopropanol twice (2 x 5.2 L) and dried under vacuum at 40 °C to yield (lr,4r)-6′-bromo-4- methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden- 2′-imidazole]-4″(3″H)-thione (4.87 kg; 10.8 mol; assay of 87% w/w by 1H NMR). Example 5

(lr,l’R,4R)-6′-Bromo-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden-l’2′- imidazole]-4″-amine D(+)-10-Camphorsulfonic acid salt

Figure imgf000020_0001

7 M Ammonia in methanol (32 L; 224 mol) was charged to a reactor containing (lr,4r)-6′-bromo-4-methoxy-5”-methyl-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden- 2′-imidazole]- 4″(3″H)-thione (5.10 kg; 11.4 mol) and zinc acetate dihydrate (3.02 kg ; 13.8 mol). The reactor was sealed and the mixture was heated to 80 °C and stirred for 24 hours, were after it was cooled to 30 °C. 1-Butanol (51L) was charged and the reaction mixture was concentrated by vacuum distilling off approximately 50 L. 1-Butanol (25 L) was added and the mixture was concentrated by vacuum distilling of 27 L. The mixture was cooled to 30 °C and 1 M sodium hydroxide (30 L; 30 mol) was charged. The biphasic mixture was agitated for 15 minutes. The lower aqueous phase was separated off. Water (20 L) was charged and the mixture was agitated for 30 minutes. The lower aqueous phase was separated off. The organic phase was heated to 70 °C were after (l S)-(+)-10-camphorsulfonic acid (2.4 kg; 10.3 mol) was charged. The mixture was stirred for 1 hour at 70 °C and then ramped down to 20 °C over 3 hours. The solid was filtered off, washed with ethanol (20 L) and dried in vacuum at 50 °C to yield (lr,4r)-6′-bromo-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden- 2′-imidazole]- 4″-amine (+)-10-Camphor sulfonic acid salt (3.12 kg; 5.13 mol; assay 102%w/w by 1H

MR).

Example 6

(lr,l’R,4R)- 4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-l-yn-l-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H- dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden-l’2′-imidazole]-4″-amine

Na2PdCl4 (1.4 g; 4.76 mmol) and 3-(di-tert-butylphosphonium)propane sulfonate (2.6 g; 9.69 mmol) dissolved in water (0.1 L) was charged to a vessel containing (lr,4r)-6′-bromo- 4-methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden- 2′-imidazole]-4″-amine (+)-10- camphorsulfonic acid salt (1 kg; 1.58 mol), potassium carbonate (0.763 kg; 5.52 mol) in a mixture of 1-butanol (7.7 L) and water (2.6 L). The mixture is carefully inerted with nitrogen whereafter 5-(prop-l-ynyl)pyridine-3-yl boronic acid (0.29 kg; 1.62 mol) is charged and the mixture is again carefully inerted with nitrogen. The reaction mixture is heated to 75 °C and stirred for 2 hours were after analysis showed full conversion. Temperature was adjusted to 45 °C. Stirring was stopped and the lower aqueous phase was separated off. The organic layer was washed 3 times with water (3 x 4 L). The reaction temperature was adjusted to 22 °C and Phosphonics SPM32 scavenger (0.195 kg) was charged and the mixture was agitated overnight. The scavenger was filtered off and washed with 1-butanol (1 L). The reaction is concentrated by distillation under reduced pressure to 3 L. Butyl acetate (7.7 L) is charged and the mixture is again concentrated down to 3 L by distillation under reduced pressure. Butyl acetate (4.8 L) was charged and the mixture was heated to 60 °C. The mixture was stirred for 1 hour were after it was concentrated down to approximately 4 L by distillation under reduced pressure. The temperature was set to 60 °C and heptanes (3.8 L) was added over 20 minutes. The mixture was cooled down to 20 °C over 3 hours and then left with stirring overnight. The solid was filtered off and washed twice with a 1 : 1 mixture of butyl acetate: heptane (2 x 2 L). The product was dried under vacuum at 50 °C to yield (lr, R,4R)-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′- [5-(prop-l-yn-l-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden- 2′-imidazole]-4”- amine (0.562 kg; 1.36 mol; assay 100% w/w by 1H MR). 1H MR (500 MHz, DMSO-i¾) δ ppm 0.97 (d, 1 H), 1.12-1.30 (m, 2 H), 1.37-1.51 (m, 3 H), 1.83 (d, 2 H), 2.09 (s, 3 H), 2.17 (s, 2 H), 2.89-3.12 (m, 3 H), 3.20 (s, 3 H), 6.54 (s, 2 H), 6.83 (s, 1 H), 7.40 (d, 1 H), 7.54 (d, 1 H), 7.90(s,lH). 8.51(d,lH), 8.67(d, lH)

Example 7

Preparation of camsylate salt of (lr,l’R,4R)- 4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-l-yn-l- yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden-l’2′-imidazole]-4′ ‘-amine

1.105 kg (lr, l ‘R,4R)- 4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-l-yn-l-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H- dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden- 2’-imidazole]-4″-amine was dissolved in 8.10 L 2-propanol and 475 mL water at 60 °C. Then 1.0 mole equivalent (622 gram) (l S)-(+)-10

camphorsulfonic acid was charged at 60 °C. The slurry was agitated until all (l S)-(+)-10 camphorsulfonic acid was dissolved. A second portion of 2-propanol was added (6.0 L) at 60 °C and then the contents were distilled until 4.3 L distillate was collected. Then 9.1 L Heptane was charged at 65 °C. After a delay of one hour the batch became opaque. Then an additional distillation was performed at about 75 °C and 8.2 L distillate was collected. The batch was then cooled to 20 °C over 2 hrs and held at that temperature overnight. Then the batch was filtered and washed with a mixture of 1.8 L 2-propanol and 2.7 L heptane. Finally the substance was dried at reduced pressure and 50 °C. The yield was 1.44 kg (83.6 % w/w). 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6) δ ppm 12.12 (1H, s), 9,70 (2H, d, J 40.2), 8.81 (1H, d, J2.1), 8.55 (1H, d, J 1.7), 8.05 (1H, dd, J2.1, 1.7), 7.77 (1H, dd, J7.8, 1.2), 7.50 (2H, m), 3.22 (3H, s), 3.19 (1H, d, J 16.1), 3.10 (1H, d, J 16.1), 3.02 (1H, m), 2.90 (1H, d, J 14.7), 2.60 (1H, m), 2.41 (1H, d, J 14.7), 2.40 (3H, s), 2.22 (1H, m), 2.10 (3H, s), 1.91 (3H, m), 1.81 (1H, m), 1.77 (1H, d, J 18.1), 1.50 (2H, m), 1.25 (6H, m), 0.98 (3H, s), 0.69 (3H, s).

Inventors Martin Hans Bohlin, Craig Robert Stewart
Applicant Astrazeneca Ab, Astrazeneca Uk Limited

str1

PATENT

WO 2012087237

Inventors Gabor Csjernyik, Sofia KARLSTRÖM, Annika Kers, Karin Kolmodin, Martin Nylöf, Liselotte ÖHBERG, Laszlo Rakos, Lars Sandberg, Fernando Sehgelmeble, Peter SÖDERMAN, Britt-Marie Swahn, Berg Stefan Von, Less «
Applicant Astrazeneca Ab

Example 20a (lr,4r)-4-Methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-(5-prop-l-yn-l-ylpyridin-3-yl)-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane- l,2′-indene-l’,2″-imidazol]- “-amine

Figure imgf000117_0001

Method A

5-(Prop-l-ynyl)pyridin-3-ylboronic acid (Intermediate 15, 0.044 g, 0.27 mmol), (lr,4r)-6′- bromo-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-indene- ,2″-imidazol]-4″-amine (Example 19 Method A Step 4, 0.085 g, 0.23 mmol), [l, l’-bis(diphenylphosphino)- ferrocene]palladium(II) chloride (9.29 mg, 0.01 mmol), K2C03 (2M aq., 1.355 mL, 0.68 mmol) and 2-methyl-tetrahydrofuran (0.5 mL) were mixed and heated to 100 °C using MW for 2×30 min. 2-methyl-tetrahydrofuran (5 mL) and H20 (5 mL) were added and the layers were separated. The organic layer was dried with MgS04 and then concentrated. The crude was dissolved in DCM and washed with H20. The organic phase was separated through a phase separator and dried in vacuo. The crude product was purified with preparative chromatography. The solvent was evaporated and the H20-phase was extracted with DCM. The organic phase was separated through a phase separator and dried to give the title compound (0.033 g, 36% yield), 1H MR (500 MHz, CD3CN) δ ppm 1.04 – 1.13 (m, 1 H), 1.23 – 1.35 (m, 2 H), 1.44 (td, 1 H), 1.50 – 1.58 (m, 2 H), 1.84 – 1.91 (m, 2 H), 2.07 (s, 3 H), 2.20 (s, 3 H), 3.00 (ddd, 1 H), 3.08 (d, 1 H), 3.16 (d, 1 H), 3.25 (s, 3 H), 5.25 (br. s., 2 H), 6.88 (d, 1 H), 7.39 (d, 1 H), 7.49 (dd, 1 H), 7.85 (t, 1 H), 8.48 (d, 1 H), 8.64 (d, 1 H), MS (MM-ES+APCI)+w/z 413 [M+H]+.

Separation of the isomers of (lr,4r)-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-(5-prop-l-yn-l-ylpyridin-3- yl)-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-indene-l’,2″-imidazol]-4″-amine

(lr,4r)-4-Methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-(5-prop-l-yn-l-ylpyridin-3-yl)-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′- indene-l’,2″-imidazol]-4″-amine (Example 20a, 0.144 g, 0.35 mmol) was purified using preparative chromatography (SFC Berger Multigram II, Column: Chiralcel OD-H; 20*250 mm; 5μιη, mobile phase: 30% MeOH (containing 0.1% DEA); 70% C02, Flow: 50 mL/min, total number of injections: 4). Fractions which contained the product were combined and the MeOH was evaporated to give: Isomer 1: (lr, R,4R)-4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-(5-prop-l-yn-l-ylpyridin-3-yl)-3’H-dispiro- [cyclohexane-l,2′-indene-l’,2″-imidazol]-4″-amine (49 mg, 34% yield) with retention time 2.5 min:

Figure imgf000118_0001

1H MR (500 MHz, CD3CN) δ ppm 1.07 – 1.17 (m, 1 H), 1.23 – 1.39 (m, 2 H), 1.47 (td, 1 H), 1.57 (ddq, 2 H), 1.86 – 1.94 (m, 2 H), 2.09 (s, 3 H), 2.23 (s, 3 H), 2.98 – 3.07 (m, 1 H), 3.11 (d, 1 H), 3.20 (d, 1 H), 3.28 (s, 3 H), 5.30 (br. s., 2 H), 6.91 (d, 1 H), 7.42 (d, 1 H), 7.52 (dd, 1 H), 7.88 (t, 1 H), 8.51 (d, 1 H), 8.67 (d, 1 H), MS (MM-ES+APCI)+ m/z 413.2 [M+H]+; and

Isomer 2: (lr,l’S,4S)-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-(5-prop-l-yn-l-ylpyridin-3-yl)-3’H- dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-indene-l’,2″-imidazol]-4″-amine (50 mg, 35% yield) with retention time 6.6 min:

Figure imgf000118_0002

1H MR (500 MHz, CD3CN) δ ppm 1.02 – 1.13 (m, 1 H), 1.20 – 1.35 (m, 2 H), 1.44 (d, 1 H), 1.54 (ddd, 2 H), 1.84 – 1.91 (m, 2 H), 2.06 (s, 3 H), 2.20 (s, 3 H), 3.00 (tt, 1 H), 3.08 (d, 1 H), 3.16 (d, 1 H), 3.25 (s, 3 H), 5.26 (br. s., 2 H), 6.88 (d, 1 H), 7.39 (d, 1 H), 7.49 (dd, 1 H), 7.84 (t, 1 H), 8.48 (d, 1 H), 8.63 (d, 1 H), MS (MM-ES+APCI)+ m/z 413.2 [M+H]+.

Method B

A vessel was charged with (lr,4r)-6′-bromo-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′- indene-l’,2″-imidazol]-4″-amine (Example 19 Method B Step 4, 7.5 g, 19.9 mmol), 5-(prop-l- ynyl)pyridin-3-ylboronic acid (Intermediate 15, 3.37 g, 20.9 mmol), 2.0 M aq. K2C03 (29.9 mL, 59.8 mmol), and 2-methyl-tetrahydrofuran (40 mL). The vessel was purged under vacuum and the atmosphere was replaced with argon. Sodium tetrachloropalladate (II) (0.147 g, 0.50 mmol) and 3-(di-tert-butyl phosphonium) propane sulfonate (0.267 g, 1.00 mmol) were added and the contents were heated to reflux for a period of 16 h. The contents were cooled to 30 °C and the phases were separated. The aqueous phase was extracted with 2-methyl-tetrahydrofuran (2 x 10 mL), then the organics were combined, washed with brine and treated with activated charcoal (2.0 g). The mixture was filtered over diatomaceous earth, and then washed with 2-methyl- tetrahydrofuran (20 mL). The filtrate was concentrated to a volume of approximately 50 mL, then water (300 μL) was added, and the contents were stirred vigorously as seed material was added to promote crystallization. The product began to crystallize and the mixture was stirred for 2 h at r.t., then 30 min. at 0-5 °C in an ice bath before being filtered. The filter cake was washed with 10 mL cold 2-methyl-tetrahydrofuran and then dried in the vacuum oven at 45 °C to give the racemic title compound (5.2 g, 12.6 mmol, 63% yield): MS (ES+) m/z 413 [M+H]+.

(lr,l’R,4R)-4-Methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-l-yn-l-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H-dispiro- [cyclohexane-l,2′-indene-l’ “-imidazol]-4”-amine (isomer 1)

Figure imgf000119_0001

Method C

A solution of (lr,4r)-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-(5-prop-l-yn-l-ylpyridin-3-yl)-3’H-dispiro- [cyclohexane-l,2′-indene-l’,2″-imidazol]-4″-amine (Example 20a method B, 4.85 g, 11.76 mmol) and EtOH (75 mL) was stirred at 55 °C. A solution of (+)-di-p-toluoyl-D-tartaric acid (2.271 g, 5.88 mmol) in EtOH (20 mL) was added and stirring continued. After 2 min. a precipitate began to form. The mixture was stirred for 2 h before being slowly cooled to 30 °C and then stirred for a further 16 h. The heat was removed and the mixture was stirred at r.t. for 30 min. The mixture was filtered and the filter cake washed with chilled EtOH (45 mL). The solid was dried in the vacuum oven at 45 °C for 5 h, then the material was charged to a vessel and DCM (50 mL) and 2.0 M aq. NaOH solution (20 mL) were added. The mixture was stirred at 25 °C for 15 min. The phases were separated and the aqueous layer was extracted with 10 mL DCM. The organic phase was concentrated in vacuo to a residue and 20 mL EtOH was added. The resulting solution was stirred at r.t. as water (15 mL) was slowly added to the vessel. A precipitate slowly began to form, and the resulting mixture was stirred for 10 min. before additional water (20 mL) was added. The mixture was stirred at r.t. for 1 h and then filtered. The filter cake was washed with water (15 mL) and dried in a vacuum oven at 45 °C for a period of 16 h to give the title compound (1.78 g, 36% yield): MS (ES+) m/z 413 [M+H]+. This material is equivalent to Example 20a Isomer 1 above. Method D

To a 500 mL round-bottomed flask was added (lr, R,4R)-6′-bromo-4-methoxy-5″-methyl-3’H- dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden- ,2′-imidazole]-4″-amine as the D(+)-10-camphor sulfonic acid salt (Example 19 Method B Step 5, 25.4 g, 41.7 mmol), 2 M aq. KOH (100 mL) and 2-methyl- tetrahydrofuran (150 mL). The mixture was stirred for 30 min at r.t. after which the mixture was transferred to a separatory funnel and allowed to settle. The phases were separated and the organic phase was washed with 2 M aq. K2C03 (100 mL). The organic phase was transferred to a 500 mL round-bottomed flask followed by addition of 5-(prop-l-ynyl)pyridin-3-ylboronic acid (Intermediate 15, 6.72 g, 41.74 mmol), K2C03 (2.0 M, 62.6 mL, 125.21 mmol). The mixture was degassed by means of bubbling Ar through the solution for 5 min. To the mixture was then added sodium tetrachloropalladate(II) (0.307 g, 1.04 mmol) and 3-(di-tert- butylphosphonium)propane sulfonate (0.560 g, 2.09 mmol) followed by heating the mixture at reflux (80 °C) overnight. The reaction mixture was allowed to cool down to r.t. and the phases were separated. The aqueous phase was extracted with 2-Me-THF (2×100 mL). The organics were combined, washed with brine and treated with activated charcoal. The mixture was filtered over diatomaceous earth and the filter cake was washed with 2-Me-THF (2×20 mL), and the filtrate was concentrated to give 17.7 g that was combined with 2.8 g from other runs. The material was dissolved in 2-Me-THF under warming and put on silica (-500 g). Elution with 2- Me-THF/ Et3N (100:0-97.5:2.5) gave the product. The solvent was evaporated, then co- evaporated with EtOH (absolute, 250 mL) to give (9.1 g, 53% yield). The HCl-salt was prepared to purify the product further: The product was dissolved in CH2C12 (125 mL) under gentle warming, HC1 in Et20 (-15 mL) in Et20 (100 mL) was added, followed by addition of Et20 (-300 mL) to give a precipitate that was filtered off and washed with Et20 to give the HCl-salt. CH2C12 and 2 M aq. NaOH were added and the phases separated. The organic phase was concentrated and then co-evaporated with MeOH. The formed solid was dried in a vacuum cabinet at 45 °C overnight to give the title compound (7.4 g, 43% yield): 1H MR (500 MHz, DMSO-i¾) δ ppm 0.97 (d, 1 H) 1.12 – 1.30 (m, 2 H) 1.37 – 1.51 (m, 3 H) 1.83 (d, 2 H) 2.09 (s, 3 H) 2.17 (s, 3 H) 2.89 – 3.12 (m, 3 H) 3.20 (s, 3 H) 6.54 (s, 2 H) 6.83 (s, 1 H) 7.40 (d, 1 H) 7.54 (d, 1 H) 7.90 (s, 1 H) 8.51 (d, 1 H) 8.67 (d, 1 H); HRMS-TOF (ES+) m/z 413.2338 [M+H]+ (calculated 413.2341); enantiomeric purity >99.5%; NMR Strength 97.8±0.6% (not including water).

References

  1. Jump up^ “AstraZeneca and Lilly announce alliance to develop and commercialise BACE inhibitor AZD3293 for Alzheimer’s disease”. http://www.astrazeneca.com. 16 Sep 2014. Retrieved 8 Oct 2014.
  2. Jump up^ “AstraZeneca and Lilly move Alzheimer’s drug into big trial”. December 2014.
  3. Jump up^ Lilly and AstraZeneca Alzheimer’s candidate advances; AstraZeneca earns $100M milestone. April 2016
PATENT CITATIONS
Cited Patent Filing date Publication date Applicant Title
WO2011002408A1 * Jul 2, 2010 Jan 6, 2011 Astrazeneca Ab Novel compounds for treatment of neurodegeneration associated with diseases, such as alzheimer’s disease or dementia
WO2012087237A1 * Dec 21, 2011 Jun 28, 2012 Astrazeneca Ab Compounds and their use as bace inhibitors
Reference
1 BUNN, C. W.: “Chemical Crystallography“, 1948, CLARENDON PRESS
2 GIACOVAZZO, C. ET AL.: “Fundamentals of Crystallography“, 1995, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
3 JENKINS, R.; SNYDER, R. L.: “ntroduction to X-Ray Powder Diffractometry“, 1996, JOHN WILEY & SONS
4 KLUG, H. P.; ALEXANDER, L. E.: “X-ray Diffraction Procedures“, 1974, JOHN WILEY AND SONS
5 ROBERDS, S. L. ET AL., HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS, vol. 10, 2001, pages 1317 – 1324
6 SINHA ET AL., NATURE, vol. 402, 1999, pages 537 – 540
7 VARGHESE, J. ET AL., JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, vol. 46, 2003, pages 4625 – 4630
1 to 4 of 4
Patent ID Patent Title Submitted Date Granted Date
US8865911 Compounds and their use as BACE inhibitors 2013-03-15 2014-10-21
US8415483 Compounds and their use as BACE inhibitors 2011-12-20 2013-04-09
US2015133471 COMPOUNDS AND THEIR USE AS BACE INHIBITORS 2014-09-15 2015-05-14
US2016184303 COMPOUNDS AND THEIR USE AS BACE INHIBITORS 2015-12-22 2016-06-30
Lanabecestat
Lanabecestat.svg
Names
Systematic IUPAC name

4-Methoxy-5′′-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-1-yn-1-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3′H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2′′-imidazole]-4′′-amine
Other names

AZD3293; LY3314814
Identifiers
3D model (JSmol)
ChemSpider
Properties
C26H28N4O
Molar mass 412.54 g·mol−1
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).

CC#CC1=CC(=CN=C1)C2=CC3=C(CC4(C35N=C(C(=N5)N)C)CCC(CC4)OC)C=C2

PAPER

Figure

Structure of Eli Lilly/AstraZeneca BACE1 inhibitor AZD3292 (+)-camsylate and of the 3-propynylpyridine fragment common to several BACE1 inhibitors.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease resulting in personality and behavioral disturbances, impaired memory loss, inability to perform daily tasks, and death.(1) AD affects an estimated 47 million patients and their families worldwide,(2) and this number is expected to rise to 115 million by 2050.(3) AD is caused through the accumulation of β-amyloid proteins into plaques outside neurons in the brain.(4) It is thought that soluble forms of this protein are neurotoxic and are the main cause of deterioration seen in Alzheimer patients. The soluble protein fragments are made through the cutting of larger proteins, namely, amyloid precursor protein (APP), by two enzymes: β-site amyloid cleaving enzyme (BACE) and γ-secretase. Notably, BACE1 inhibitors have shown promise as potentially disease-modifying treatments for AD.(5) The novel, potent BACE-1 inhibitor AZD3293 (LY3314814) is a brain-permeable, orally active compound with a slow off-rate from its target enzyme, BACE1, which robustly reduced plasma, CSF, and brain Aβ40, Aβ42, and sAβPPβ concentrations in multiple nonclinical species, in elderly subjects, and patients with AD. Eli Lilly and Co. and AstraZeneca are currently studying AZD3293 in phase 3 clinical trials.

Development of a Continuous-Flow Sonogashira Cross-Coupling Protocol using Propyne Gas under Process Intensified Conditions

Institute of Chemistry, University of Graz, NAWI Graz, Heinrichstrasse 28, 8010 Graz, Austria
Research Center Pharmaceutical Engineering GmbH (RCPE), Inffeldgasse 13, 8010 Graz, Austria
§ AstraZeneca, Silk Road Business Park, Macclesfield SK10 2NA, United Kingdom
Org. Process Res. Dev., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.7b00160

Abstract

Abstract Image

The development of a continuous-flow Sonogashira cross-coupling protocol using propyne gas for the synthesis of a key intermediate in the manufacturing of a β-amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) inhibitor, currently undergoing late stage clinical trials for a disease-modifying therapy of Alzheimer’s disease, is described. Instead of the currently used batch manufacturing process for this intermediate that utilizes TMS-propyne as reagent, we herein demonstrate the safe utilization of propyne gas, as a cheaper and more atom efficient reagent, using an intensified continuous-flow protocol under homogeneous conditions. The flow process afforded the target intermediate with a desired product selectivity of ∼91% (vs the bis adduct) after a residence time of 10 min at 160 °C. The continuous-flow process compares favorably with the batch process, which uses TMS-propyne and requires overnight processing, TBAF as an additive, and a significantly higher loading of Cu co-catalyst.

Product 3:

1H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3) δ ppm 8.48 (d, J = 1.2 Hz, 1H), 8.44 (d, J = 1.2 Hz, 1H), 7.74 (t, J = 2.0 Hz, 1H), 2.00 (s, 3H).

13C NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3) δ ppm 150.2, 149.0, 140.7, 122.5, 119.9, 91.2, 75.2, 4.4.

Product 6: 1H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3) δ ppm 8.47 (d, J = 1.9, 2H), 7.63 (t, J = 2.0 Hz, 1H) 2.08 (s, 6H).

Product 4 was isolated for NMR analysis using the same purification procedure as described for product 3.

1 H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3) δ ppm 8.54 (d, J = 2.2 Hz, 1H), 8.51 (d, J = 1.7 Hz, 1H), 7.81 (t, J = 2.0 Hz, 1H), 2.42 (t, J = 7.0 Hz, 2H), 1.65–1.40 (m, 4H), 0.95 (t, J = 7.2 Hz, 3H).

13C NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3) δ ppm 150.5, 149.2, 140.9, 122.8, 120.1, 95.9, 76.2, 30.6, 22.1, 19.3, 13.7.

str1 str2 str3 str4 str5 str6

///////////////LanabecestatLY3314814, 1383982-64-6, AZD3293, PHASE 3, AZ-12304146, Fast Track, Nootropic agent, Neuroprotectant

TILOGLIPTIN


PRESENTING 2 MOLECULES………..I AM NOT SURE WHICH IS TITLE MOLECULE

EMAIL ME amcrasto@gmail.com

str0CHEMBL2347039.png

Molecular Formula: C25H27N7O
Molecular Weight: 441.539 g/mol

2-[(3R)-3alpha-Aminopiperidino]-3-(2-butynyl)-5-(4-methyl-2-quinazolinylmethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3H-pyrrolo[3,2-d]pyrimidine-4-one

CAS 1428445-40-2

REF Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry (2013), 21(7), 1749-1755.

NEXT ONE………………

str1

CID 71553372.png

CAS 1415912-31-0

1H-Purine-2,6-dione, 8-[(3R)-3-amino-1-piperidinyl]-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-3,7-dihydro-3-methyl-1-([1,2,5]thiadiazolo[3,4-b]pyridin-5-ylmethyl)-
8-[(3R)-3-Amino-1-piperidinyl]-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-3,7-dihydro-3-methyl-1-([1,2,5]thiadiazolo[3,4-b]pyridin-5-ylmethyl)-1H-purine-2,6-dione
8-[(3R)-3-aminopiperidin-1-yl]-7-but-2-ynyl-3-methyl-1-([1,2,5]thiadiazolo[3,4-b]pyridin-5-ylmethyl)purine-2,6-dione
Molecular Formula: C21H23N9O2S
Molecular Weight: 465.536 g/mol

REF CN 102807568, CN 105315301,  WO 2016019868

Salt………..

CAS 1874255-95-4

C21 H23 N9 O2 S . C6 H8 O7
1H-Purine-2,6-dione, 8-[(3R)-3-amino-1-piperidinyl]-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-3,7-dihydro-3-methyl-1-([1,2,5]thiadiazolo[3,4-b]pyridin-5-ylmethyl)-, 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate (1:1)

TILOGLIPTIN

HWH-ZGC-2-143

Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health

Image result for Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health

Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd;

Image result for Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd;
Non-insulin dependent diabetes

Dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor (oral, type 2 diabetes),

DPP-IV inhibitors (oral, type 2 diabetes), Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health/Jiangsu Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical ; HWH-ZGC-2-143 ;

Novel polymorphic forms of thiadiazole derivatives, preferably aglucin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, vildagliptin, levaratine, useful for treating type II diabetes. Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health , in collaboration with Jiangsu Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical , is investigating tilogliptin , an oral dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor and a pyrrolopyrimidine analog, for treating type 2 diabetes.

As of June 2017, Centaurus BioPharma is developing diabetes therapy, CT-1006 and CT-1005 (in preclinical development) for treating diabetes mellitus.

See WO2016019868, claiming novel citric acid salt of 8-((R)-3-amino-piperidin-1-yl)-1-([1,2,5]-thiadiazolo [3,4-b] pyridine-5methyl)-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-3-methyl-xanthine, coassigned to Lianyungang Runzhong Pharmaceutical .

str2

PATENT

WO2016019868

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2016019868

Chinese Patent Application CN102807568 discloses the use of thiadiazole derivatives DPP-IV inhibitors and their use in the treatment and / or prophylaxis of diseases susceptible to DPP-IV inhibition, particularly in the treatment of type II diabetes. There is still a need for a good thiadiazole derivative DPP-IV inhibitor and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof having good pharmacological and bioavailability.
The contents of the invention
In one aspect, the present application provides 8 – ((R) -3-amino-piperidin-1-yl) -1 – ([1,2,5] thiadiazolo [3,4-b] pyridine- Methyl) -7- (2-butyn-1-yl) -3-methyl-xanthine (having the structure of the following formula I, hereinafter referred to as the compound of formula I).
In another aspect, the present application provides monocarbamates of the compounds of formula I wherein the structural formula is as follows:

PATENT

WO 2017088790

Centaurus BioPharma Co Ltd; Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd

DPP-IV (dipeptidyl peptidase IV) is a serine protease that is expressed in various tissues (eg, liver, lung, intestine, kidney, etc.) in vivo, responsible for endogenous peptides (GLP-1 (7 -36)) metabolic cleavage. However, GLP-1 (7-36) has a variety of beneficial effects in the body, including stimulation of insulin secretion, inhibition of glucagon secretion, promotion of fullness and delayed gastric emptying. Thus, inhibition of DPP-IV can be used to prevent and / or treat diabetes, particularly type II diabetes. There are a variety of DPP-IV inhibitors listed, such as aglucin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, vildagliptin, levaratine and so on.
Chinese Patent Application CN102807568 discloses a thiadiazole derivative DPP-IV inhibitor as shown in Formula I or Formula II wherein said compound of formula (especially compound 7) has a very good DPP-IV inhibitory activity. In addition, compound 7 also has a very good in vivo metabolic level and a very suitable in vivo half-life, particularly suitable as a DPP-IV inhibitor drug.
In addition to the therapeutic efficacy, the drug developer attempts to provide a suitable form of the active molecule having properties as a drug (e.g., processing, preparation, storage stability, etc.). Therefore, the discovery of the form of the desired nature of the drug development is also essential.
To a 30 L glass autoclave was added 5.5 L of ethanol, 550 g of an intermediate of 1,256 g of (R) 3-aminopiperidine dihydrochloride, 414 g of sodium bicarbonate, stirred and heated to a temperature of 75 ° C to 80 ° C ℃, stirring reaction 4h. TLC (254 nm UV light, methanol: dichloromethane: aqueous ammonia = 1: 10: 0.1, Rf intermediate 1 = 0.7, Rf product = 0.5) was monitored until intermediate 1 was complete, filtered, and ethanol washed. The filtrate 45 ± 5 ℃ under reduced pressure evaporated, add 5L of methylene chloride dissolved, 5L purified water washing; add 5L purified water, 288g citric acid extraction, 2.5L purified water extraction organic phase, combined with water; Methyl chloride and 10L ethanol; add 5L dichloromethane, the temperature control does not exceed 30 degrees, slowly adding sodium hydroxide solution, extraction and separation; organic phase washed with 5L purified water; anhydrous sodium sulfate drying organic phase. Filtered and the filtrate 30 ± 5 ° C evaporated to dryness under reduced pressure to give 372 g of the compound of formula 7 as an amorphous form
Paper

Discovery of potent dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors through pharmacophore hybridization and hit-to-lead optimization

  • a Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Science, 190 Kaiyuan Avenue, Guangzhou Science Park, Guangzhou 510530, China
  • b Jiangsu Chia-Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, No. 8 Julong North Rd., Xinpu Lianyungang, Jiangsu 222006, China
  • c State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou 510120, China
//////TILOGLIPTIN

N[C@@H]1CCCN(C1)C5=Nc4ccn(Cc3nc2ccccc2c(C)n3)c4C(=O)N5CC#CC

N[C@@H]1CCCN(C1)c5nc4c(C(=O)N(Cc2ccc3nsnc3n2)C(=O)N4C)n5CC#CC

str2

str1

TEGAFUR


Skeletal formula of tegafur

Tegafur

CAS 17902-23-7

2,​4(1H,​3H)​-​Pyrimidinedione, 5-​fluoro-​1-​(tetrahydro-​2-​furanyl)​-
Molecular Weight,200.17, MF C8 H9 F N2 O3
172-173 °C

Miyashita, Osamu; Chemical & Pharmaceutical Bulletin 1981, 29(11), PG 3181-90

Uracil, 5-fluoro-1-(tetrahydro-2-furyl)-
Utefos
Venoterpine
WY1559000
YR0450000
5-fluoro-1-tetrahydrofuran-2-ylpyrimidine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione
Carzonal
N1-(2′-Furanidyl)-5-fluorouracil
  • Synonyms:Ftorafur
  • ATC:L01BC03
  • EINECS:241-846-2
  • LD50:800 mg/kg (M, i.v.); 775 mg/kg (M, p.o.);
    685 mg/kg (R, i.v.); 930 mg/kg (R, p.o.);
    34 mg/kg (dog, p.o.)

Derivatives, monosodium salt

  • Formula:C8H8FN2NaO3
  • MW:222.15 g/mol
  • CAS-RN:28721-46-2

Tegafur (INN, BAN, USAN) is a chemotherapeutic prodrug of 5-flourouracil (5-FU) used in the treatment of cancers. It is a component of the combination drug tegafur/uracil. When metabolised, it becomes 5-FU.[1]

Medical uses

As a prodrug to 5-FU it is used in the treatment of the following cancers:[2]

It is often given in combination with drugs that alter its bioavailability and toxicity such as gimeracil, oteracil or uracil.[2] These agents achieve this by inhibiting the enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (uracil/gimeracil) or orotate phosphoribosyltransferase (oteracil).[2]

Image result for tegafur

Adverse effects

The major side effects of tegafur are similar to fluorouracil and include myelosuppression, central neurotoxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity (especially diarrhoea).[2] Gastrointestinal toxicity is the dose-limiting side effect of tegafur.[2] Central neurotoxicity is more common with tegafur than with fluorouracil.[2]

Image result for tegafur

Pharmacogenetics

The dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme is responsible for the detoxifying metabolism of fluoropyrimidines, a class of drugs that includes 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, and tegafur.[4] Genetic variations within the DPD gene (DPYD) can lead to reduced or absent DPD activity, and individuals who are heterozygous or homozygous for these variations may have partial or complete DPD deficiency; an estimated 0.2% of individuals have complete DPD deficiency.[4][5] Those with partial or complete DPD deficiency have a significantly increased risk of severe or even fatal drug toxicities when treated with fluoropyrimidines; examples of toxicities include myelosuppression, neurotoxicity and hand-foot syndrome.[4][5]

Mechanism of action

It is a prodrug to 5-FU, which is a thymidylate synthase inhibitor.[2]

Pharmacokinetics

It is metabolised to 5-FU by CYP2A6.[6][7]

Interactive pathway map

Click on genes, proteins and metabolites below to link to respective articles.[§ 1]

FluoropyrimidineActivity_WP1601

go to article go to article go to article go to pathway article go to pathway article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to PubChem Compound go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to pathway article go to pathway article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to WikiPathways go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article go to article

The interactive pathway map can be edited at WikiPathways: “FluoropyrimidineActivity_WP1601”.

Image result for tegafur

Image result for tegafur SYNTHESIS

Image result for tegafur SYNTHESIS

MASS SPECTRUM

STR2

1H NMR

str3 str4

IR

str5

13C NMR