The causes of a peripheral blood eosinophilia in a secondary care setting.

BACKGROUND: A peripheral blood eosinophilia of greater than 1.0 × 109 /L is relatively unusual and offers a clue to the underlying diagnosis. In 2003, we established a specialist service to diagnose unexplained eosinophilia. OBJECTIVE: To describe the causes of an eosinophilia in our service and the diagnostic algorithm we developed. METHODS: Subjects were referred by physician colleagues across a range of specialties and undertook standard investigations following a semi-structured protocol. Data were extracted from a bespoke database. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty two subjects were referred over a 17-year period. Average age was 54 years and 183 (48%) of subjects were female, with 21 of 25 (84%) females in the idiopathic eosinophilic pneumonia group (p < 0001), 22 of 30 (73%) females in the gastrointestinal disease group (p < .008), but 11 of 37 (30%) females in the eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis group (p < .04). A diagnosis was assigned after systematic evaluation using a pre-defined algorithm in 361 (94.5%) of cases. Fungal allergy (82 subjects: 21%), parasitic infection (61 subjects: 16%) and severe eosinophilic asthma (50 subjects: 13%) were the three commonest individual diagnoses. Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) disease including eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) accounted for 85 subjects (20%) of which seven subjects (2%) had myeloproliferative disease (M-HES). A high IgE was common, and 79 (91%) of subjects with complete data who had an IgE of ≥1000 IU/L had fungal allergy or parasite infection. The serum tryptase was raised in 44 of 302 (14.5%) of individuals across all diagnostic groups, though none had mastocytosis. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of an unexplained eosinophilia can usually be determined using as semi-structured algorithm. Parasitic infection and fungal allergy often with severe eosinophilic asthma were common causes, whereas HES, particularly myeloproliferative, disease was relatively rare.

The perplexity of prescribing and switching of biologic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a UK regional audit of practice.

BACKGROUND: Biologic drugs are expensive treatments used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Switching among them is common practice in patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerable adverse events. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) UK, which aims to curtail postcode prescribing, has provided guidance on the sequential prescription of these drugs. This study sought to evaluate the extent to which rheumatology centres across the Midlands were complying with NICE guidance on the switching of biologic drugs in RA, as well as analyse the various prescribing patterns of these drugs. METHODS: Data was collected via a web-based tool on RA patients who had undergone at least one switch of a biologic drug during 2011. The standards specified in NICE technology appraisals (TA130, TA186, TA195, TA198, and TA225) were used to assess compliance with NICE guidance. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 335 biologic drug switches in 317 patients. The most common reason given for switching to a drug was NICE guidelines (242, 72.2%), followed by Physician's choice (122, 33.4%). Lack of effect was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug (224, 67%). For patients on Rituximab, Methotrexate was used in 133 switches (76.9% of the time). Overall NICE compliance for all units was 65% (range 50 to 100%), with anti-TNFα to anti-TNFα switches for inefficacy making up the majority of non-compliant switches. CONCLUSION: This study draws attention to the enigma and disparity of commissioning and prescribing of biologic drugs in RA. Currently the evidence would not support switching of a biologic drug for non-clinical purposes such as economic pressures. Flexibility in prescribing should be encouraged: biologic therapy should be individualised based on the mode of action and likely tolerability of these drugs. Further work should focus on the evidence for using particular sequences of biologic drugs.