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.

Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients from Mexico with rheumatoid arthritis: Pooled efficacy and safety analyses from Phase 3 and LTE studies.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We characterized efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in Mexican patients from RA Phase 3 and long-term extension (LTE) studies. METHODS: Data from Mexican patients with RA and an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were taken from four Phase 3 studies (pooled across studies) and one open-label LTE study of tofacitinib. Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10mg twice daily, adalimumab (one Phase 3 study) or placebo (four Phase 3 studies) as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs. Efficacy up to Month 12 (Phase 3) and Month 36 (LTE) was assessed by American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response rates, Disease Activity Score (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index. Safety, including incidence rates (IRs; patients with events/100 patient-years) for adverse events (AEs) of special interest, was assessed throughout the studies. RESULTS: 119 and 212 Mexican patients were included in the Phase 3 and LTE analyses, respectively. Tofacitinib-treated patients in Phase 3 had numerically greater improvements in efficacy responses versus placebo at Month 3. Efficacy was sustained in Phase 3 and LTE studies. IRs for AEs of special interest were similar to those with tofacitinib in the global and Latin American RA populations. CONCLUSIONS: In Mexican patients from the tofacitinib global RA program, tofacitinib efficacy was demonstrated up to Month 12 in Phase 3 studies and Month 36 in the LTE study, with a safety profile consistent with tofacitinib global population.

Differentiating biosimilarity and comparability in biotherapeutics.

The manufacture of biologics is a complex process involving numerous steps. Over time, differences may arise as a result of planned changes to the manufacturing processes of a biologic from the same manufacturer. Comparability is the regulatory process that outlines the scope of an assessment required of an already licensed biologic after a manufacturing process change made by the same manufacturer. The aim of a comparability assessment is to demonstrate that any pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing changes have no adverse impact on quality, safety, and efficacy of the biologic. A comparability assessment is distinct from a biosimilarity assessment, which involves extensive assessment of a biologic that is highly similar to the originator (reference product) in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. The US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and World Health Organization have applied the fundamental comparability concepts into their respective biosimilarity guidance documents. In this review, we examine the rationale behind the distinct, highly regulated approval processes governing changes that may occur over time to an originator biologic due to planned manufacturing changes (as described by a comparability exercise) and those that outline the approval of a proposed biosimilar drug, based on its relationship with the reference product (biosimilarity evaluations).

The prevalence and clinical characteristics of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis among patients with inflammatory back pain in rheumatology practices: a multinational, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), who by definition have radiographic sacroiliitis, typically experience symptoms for a decade or more before being diagnosed. Yet, even patients without radiographic sacroiliitis (i.e., nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis [nr-axSpA]) report a significant disease burden. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of nr-axSpA among patients with inflammatory back pain (IBP) in rheumatology clinics in a number of countries across the world. A secondary objective was to estimate the prevalence of IBP among patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: Data were collected from 51 rheumatology outpatient clinics in 19 countries in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. As consecutive patients with CLBP (N = 2517) were seen by physicians at the sites, their clinical histories were evaluated to determine whether they met the new Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for IBP. For those who did, their available clinical history (e.g., family history, C-reactive protein [CRP] levels) was documented in a case report form to establish whether they met criteria for nr-axSpA, AS, or other IBP. Patients diagnosed with nr-axSpA or AS completed patient-reported outcome measures to assess disease activity and functional limitations. RESULTS: A total of 2517 patients with CLBP were identified across all sites. Of these, 974 (38.70 %) fulfilled the criteria for IBP. Among IBP patients, 29.10 % met criteria for nr-axSpA, and 53.72 % met criteria for AS. The prevalence of nr-axSpA varied significantly by region (p < 0.05), with the highest prevalence reported in Asia (36.46 %) and the lowest reported in Africa (16.02 %). Patients with nr-axSpA reported mean ± SD Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scores based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate and CRP of 2.62 ± 1.17 and 2.52 ± 1.21, respectively, indicating high levels of disease activity (patients with AS reported corresponding scores of 2.97 ± 1.13 and 2.93 ± 1.18). Similarly, the overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score of 4.03 ± 2.23 for patients with nr-axSpA (4.56 ± 2.17 for patients with AS) suggested suboptimal disease control. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that, in the centers that participated in the study, 29 % of patients with IBP met the criteria for nr-axSpA and 39 % of patients with CLBP had IBP. The disease burden in nr-axSpA is substantial and similar to that of AS, with both groups of patients experiencing inadequate disease control. These findings suggest the need for early detection of nr-axSpA and initiation of available treatment options to slow disease progression and improve patient well-being.

Clinical and regulatory perspectives on biosimilar therapies and intended copies of biologics in rheumatology.

Biologics are vital to the management of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Nevertheless, access to these highly effective treatments remains an unmet medical need for many people around the world. As patents expire for existing licensed biologic (originator) products, biosimilar products can be approved by regulatory authorities and enter clinical use. Biosimilars are highly similar copies of originator biologics approved through defined and stringent regulatory processes after having undergone rigorous analytical, non-clinical, and clinical evaluations. The introduction of high-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars has the potential to expand access to these important medicines. Biosimilars are proven to be similar to the originator biologic in terms of safety and efficacy and to have no clinically meaningful differences. In contrast, "intended copies" are copies of originator biologics that have not undergone rigorous comparative evaluations according to the World Health Organization recommendations, but are being commercialized in some countries. There is a lack of information about the efficacy and safety of intended copies compared with the originator. Furthermore, they may have clinically significant differences in formulation, dosages, efficacy, or safety. In this review, we explore the differences between biosimilars and intended copies and describe key concepts related to biosimilars. Familiarity with these topics may facilitate decision making about the appropriate use of biosimilars for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.