No abstract

Following insights from recent crystal structures of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor, binding modes of Positive Allosteric Modulators (PAMs) were predicted under the assumption that PAMs should bind to the extracellular surface of the active state. A series of well-characterized PAMs for adenosine (A1R, A2AR, A3R) and muscarinic acetylcholine (M1R, M5R) receptors were modeled using both rigid and flexible receptor CHARMM-based molecular docking. Studies of adenosine receptors investigated the molecular basis of the probe-dependence of PAM activity by modeling in complex with specific agonist radioligands. Consensus binding modes map common pharmacophore features of several chemical series to specific binding interactions. These models provide a rationalization of how PAM binding slows agonist radioligand dissociation kinetics. M1R PAMs were predicted to bind in the analogous M2R PAM LY2119620 binding site. The M5R NAM (ML-375) was predicted to bind in the PAM (ML-380) binding site with a unique induced-fit receptor conformation.

Background Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years. Methods Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm. Results This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39–0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56–0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5. Conclusions In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.