Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in the Developing Countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East: A Review.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), the leading cause of skin-related burden of disease worldwide, is increasing in prevalence in developing countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Although AD presents similarly across racial and ethnic groups as chronic and relapsing pruritic eczematous lesions, some features of the disease may be more or less prominent in patients with darker skin. Despite a similar presentation, consistent diagnostic criteria and consistent treatment guidelines are lacking. Because of these and other challenges, adherence to treatment guidelines is difficult or impossible. Previous studies have stated that many patients with AD receive ineffective or inappropriate care, such as oral antihistamines, oral corticosteroids, or traditional medicines, if they are treated at all; one study showed that approximately one-third of patients received medical care for their dermatologic condition; of those, almost three-quarters received inappropriate or ineffective treatment. In addition, other challenges endemic to developing countries include cost, access to care, and lack of specialists in AD. Furthermore, most of the available diagnostic criteria and treatment guidelines are based on European and North American populations and few clinical trials report the racial or ethnic makeup of the study population. Drug pharmacokinetics in varying ethnicities and adverse effects in different skin physiologies are areas yet to be explored. The objective of this review is to describe the diagnosis, treatment, and management of AD in developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East; to discuss the differences among the countries; and to establish the unmet needs of patients with AD in them. The unmet medical need for treatment of AD in developing countries can be addressed by continuing to train medical specialists, improve access to and affordability of care, and develop new and effective treatments.Funding Pfizer Inc.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients from the Asia-Pacific region: Post-hoc analyses of pooled clinical study data.

AIM: We report tofacitinib efficacy and safety in Asia-Pacific patients who participated in the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical development program. METHOD: This post-hoc analysis included pooled data from patients with RA in the Asia-Pacific region treated with tofacitinib with/without conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Phase (P)1, 2, 3, and long-term extension (LTE) studies (one LTE ongoing; January 2016 data-cut). Efficacy was assessed over 24 months in patients who received tofacitinib 5 (N = 397) or 10 (N = 382) mg twice daily or placebo (N = 243) in three P2 and five P3 studies. Endpoints included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 responses, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission rates, and change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (∆HAQ-DI). Safety data pooled over 92 months from one P1, four P2, six P3, and two LTE studies for all tofacitinib doses (N = 1464) included incidence rates (IRs) (patients with events/100 patient-years) for adverse events (AEs) of special interest. RESULTS: At month 3, patients receiving tofacitinib 5/10 mg twice daily improved vs placebo in ACR20 (69.2%/77.9% vs 27.5%), ACR50 (36.9%/44.4% vs 9.5%), and ACR70 (15.1%/22.4% vs 2.7%) responses, remission rates for DAS28-4(ESR) (8.5%/18.5% vs 2.6%) and CDAI (6.1%/12.3% vs 0.5%), and ∆HAQ-DI (-0.5/-0.6 vs -0.1); improvements were sustained through 24 months. IRs (95% CI) were 9.4 (8.5, 10.3) for serious AEs, 9.1 (8.3, 10.1) for discontinuations due to AEs, 3.7 (3.2, 4.3) for serious infections, 5.9 (5.2, 6.7) for herpes zoster, and 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer). CONCLUSION: In Asia-Pacific patients, tofacitinib improved signs/symptoms over 24 months. Safety over 92 months was generally consistent with global tofacitinib studies; however, infection IRs were higher in Asia-Pacific patients.

Assessment of clinical efficacy and safety in a randomized double-blind study of etanercept and sulfasalazine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis from Eastern/Central Europe, Latin America, and Asia.

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of etanercept for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), sulfasalazine is often prescribed, especially in countries with limited access to biologic agents. The objective of this subset analysis of the ASCEND trial was to compare the efficacy of etanercept and sulfasalazine in treating patients with AS from Asia, Eastern/Central Europe, and Latin America. A total of 287 patients, 190 receiving etanercept 50 mg once weekly and 97 receiving sulfasalazine 3 g daily, from eight countries were included in this subset analysis. Differences in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes assessing health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) parameters in response to treatment were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical efficacy endpoints and analysis of covariance model for continuous variables. At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving etanercept achieved ASAS20 (79.0 %) compared with patients receiving sulfasalazine (61.9 %; p = 0.002). At week 16, treatment with etanercept also resulted in significantly better responses than sulfasalazine for ASAS40 (64.7 vs. 35.1 %; p < 0.001), ASAS5/6 (48.1 vs. 26.3 %; p < 0.001), proportion of patients achieving 50 % response in Bath AS Disease Activity Index (65.8 vs. 42.3 %; p < 0.001), partial remission (35.3 vs. 17.5 %; p = 0.002), and all HRQoL parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated. Etanercept was significantly more effective than sulfasalazine in the treatment of patients with AS from Asia, Central/Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

Validation of OSTA among Filipinos.

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease in humans. It is a special concern not only among postmenopausal women, but men as well. In developing countries where there are meager resources, it will definitely be helpful to search for ways to identify patients with low bone mineral density who have a high risk of future fractures. These people need to be identified for treatment consideration in order to reduce the incidence of the disease and its complications. A simple risk index called the Osteoporosis Screening Tool for Asians (OSTA), based only on two variables, age and body weight, performed well in identifying the risk of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women. This index has been validated in Japan, Korea and other Caucasian populations as a useful tool in identifying individuals who will require BMD measurement. This is the first study that validated the said index in 1,597 Filipino women and men referred to a tertiary center for BMD measurement. It had sensitivity of 97 and 90% and specificity of 59 and 66% with areas under the curve of 0.8506 and 0.8475, respectively, for women and men. We conclude that OSTA performed just as well or even better than other indices used in other populations to identify individuals who are at varying degrees of risk for osteoporosis. The tool also proves to be a useful and practical guide to help clinicians to be more prudent and judicious in employing bone mineral density measurement.