Background In patients with melanoma, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) prolongs overall survival and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) produced durable tumor regressions in a phase 1 trial. Based on their distinct immunologic mechanisms of action and supportive preclinical data, we conducted a phase 1 trial of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patients. Methods Patients received nivolumab and ipilimumab every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone every 3 weeks for 4 doses (concurrent regimen). Combined treatment was subsequently continued every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. In a sequenced regimen, patients previously treated with ipilimumab received nivolumab every 2 weeks. Results Fifty-three patients received concurrent nivolumab/ipilimumab and 33 received sequenced treatment. The objective response rate, for all concurrent-regimen patients was 40% (modified WHO criteria). Evidence of clinical activity (conventional, unconfirmed, or immune-related response or stable disease ≥24 weeks) was observed in 65% of patients. At the maximum tolerated dose (1 mg/kg nivolumab + 3 mg/kg ipilimumab), 53% of patients achieved an objective response, all with ≥80% tumor reduction. Grade 3–4 related adverse events occurred in 53% of concurrent-regimen patients, but were qualitatively similar to historical monotherapy experience and were generally reversible. Among sequenced-regimen patients, 18% had grade 3–4 related adverse events and the objective response rate was 20%. Conclusions Concurrent nivolumab/ipilimumab had a manageable safety profile and achieved clinical activity that is distinct from published monotherapy data, with rapid and deep tumor regressions in a substantial number of patients.

No abstract

Photodegradation of 4"-(epimethylamino)-4"-deoxyavermectin Bu as thin films on glass, using artificial light, resulted in the formation of multiple photodegradates. Six primary degradates and two secondary degradates were identified. The primary degradates formed were 8,9-Z-4"-(epimethylamino)-4"deoxyavermectin Bu (a geometric isomer), delta 2,3-4"-(epimethylamino)-4"-deoxyavermectin Bu (a positional isomer), avermectin Bu monosaccharide, 4"-epiamino-4"-deoxyavermectin Bu, 4"-N-formyl-4"-deoxyavermectin Bu, and 4"-iV-methyl-N-formyl-4,,-deoxyavermectin Bu. The secondary degradates formed, both geometric isomers of two primary degradates, were 8,9-Z-4"-epiamino-4"deoxyavermectin Bu and 8,9-Z-4"-JV-formyl-4"-deoxyavermectin Bu. The substitution of the epi-iVmethylamino group for the hydroxyl group at the 4" position of avermectin Bu profoundly affected the formation of photodegradates in thin films reported in earlier studies.

LBA9003^ Background: We report updated survival and clinical activity in initially enrolled cohorts and activity by BRAF MT status in a phase I trial of concurrent and sequenced NIVO + IPI. Methods: MEL pts (n=53, enrolled 2009-2012, data analysis Dec 2013) with ≤3 prior therapies received IV concurrent NIVO + IPI, Q3Wk × 4 doses, followed by NIVO Q3Wk × 4. At wk 24, NIVO + IPI continued Q12Wk × 8 in pts with disease control and no DLT. Tumor responses were evaluated by WHO and immune-related criteria. Results: Pt characteristics included stage M1c: 55% and prior systemic therapy: 40%. Across doses, 1- and 2-y OS rates were 82% and 75%. Clinical activity was similar to previous reports except CRs rose to 9/53 (17%). Pts with/without tumor BRAF MT (n=36) had similar activity (Table). By wk 36, 42% demonstrated ≥80% tumor reduction. Median duration of response (DOR) was not reached (NR). Of 22 pts with objective response, 14 (64%) had DOR ≥24 wk (range: 25+, 106+). Treatment-related adverse events were as reported previously: grade 3-4, 53% of pts; most common: ↑ lipase and AST (13% ea). Data for sequenced cohorts are shown (Table). Conclusions: Concurrent NIVO + IPI therapy showed encouraging survival and a manageable safety profile in advanced MEL pts. Responses were observed regardless of BRAF MT status and were durable in the majority of pts. Forty additional pts were enrolled (last pt: Nov 2013) on a cohort of NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3Wk × 4 doses, followed by NIVO 3mg/kg Q2Wk (the selected regimen for phase II/III trials). Clinical trial information: NCT01024231. [Table: see text]

Photodegradation of avermectin B1, thin films under artificial light (above 260 nm) for short periods of time (greater than 60% of parent compound remaining) resulted in the formation of at least 10 primary degradates including two geometric isomers, 7 monooxygenated derivatives, and 1 dealkylated derivative. Prolonged photolysis of avermectin B1, thin films (no parent compound remaining) resulted in a polar residue which appeared to consist of a complex mixture of degradates with few characteristics of the parent molecule.

Flunixin meglumine is used in veterinary medicine as an alternative to narcotic analgesics and as an antiinflammatory agent. Eight Holstein dairy cows were dosed intravenously once daily on three consecutive days with (14)C-flunixin meglumine at approximately 2.2 mg of flunixin free acid/kg of body weight. Milk was collected twice daily to determine the decline of the total radioactive residues (TRR) in milk and to identify or characterize residue components. TRR in milk declined rapidly and averaged 66, 20, and 14 ppb, respectively, for the first, second, and third milkings after administration of the last dose. Milk was extracted, and the extracts were examined for radioactive residues. Mean extractability of milk TRR was always greater than 80%. Flunixin and 5-hydroxyflunixin were identified by coelution with analytical standards using reverse phase HPLC. These two residues were the main radioactive residues found in milk and together accounted for 64, 37, and 44% of the extractable residues, for the first, second, and third milkings, respectively, after administration of the last dose. The presence of 5-OH flunixin in milk was confirmed by HPLC/MS/MS.

No abstract

In the present studies, the pharmacokinetic properties of boceprevir were not altered to a clinically meaningful extent in patients with impaired liver or renal function. These data indicate that boceprevir dose adjustment is not warranted in patients with impaired hepatic function or ESRD, including those receiving dialysis. Boceprevir is not removed by haemodialysis.