The multidisciplinary approach to eosinophilia.

Eosinophilic granulocytes are normally present in low numbers in the bloodstream. Patients with an increased number of eosinophilic granulocytes in the differential count (eosinophilia) are common and can pose a clinical challenge because conditions with eosinophilia occur in all medical specialties. The diagnostic approach must be guided by a thorough medical history, supported by specific tests to guide individualized treatment. Neoplastic (primary) eosinophilia is identified by one of several unique acquired genetic causes. In contrast, reactive (secondary) eosinophilia is associated with a cytokine stimulus in a specific disease, while idiopathic eosinophilia is a diagnosis by exclusion. Rational treatment is disease-directed in secondary cases and has paved the way for targeted treatment against the driver in primary eosinophilia, whereas idiopathic cases are treated as needed by principles in eosinophilia originating from clonal drivers. The vast majority of patients are diagnosed with secondary eosinophilia and are managed by the relevant specialty-e.g., rheumatology, allergy, dermatology, gastroenterology, pulmonary medicine, hematology, or infectious disease. The overlap in symptoms and the risk of irreversible organ involvement in eosinophilia, irrespective of the cause, warrants that patients without a diagnostic clarification or who do not respond to adequate treatment should be referred to a multidisciplinary function anchored in a hematology department for evaluation. This review presents the pathophysiology, manifestations, differential diagnosis, diagnostic workup, and management of (adult) patients with eosinophilia. The purpose is to place eosinophilia in a clinical context, and therefore justify and inspire the establishment of a multidisciplinary team of experts from diagnostic and clinical specialties at the regional level to support the second opinion. The target patient population requires highly specialized laboratory analysis and therapy and occasionally has severe eosinophil-induced organ dysfunction. An added value of a centralized, clinical function is to serve as a platform for education and research to further improve the management of patients with eosinophilia. Primary and idiopathic eosinophilia are key topics in the review, which also address current research and discusses outstanding issues in the field.

A retrospective cohort study of patients with eosinophilia referred to a tertiary centre.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with eosinophilia (an increased number of eosinophilic granulocytes > 0.5 × 108/l in the blood) are encountered in all medical specialties and frequently need thorough workup to identify the eliciting causes and decide whether treatment is indicated. In Denmark, highly specialised centres for eosinophilic diseases or conditions have been established to provide a foundation for the management of complicated cases. Here, we present experiences from such a multidisciplinary centre. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all patients seen in our tertiary centre for eosinophilia in the 2016-2019 period. RESULTS: Referrals mainly derived from specialised secondary care and to a lesser degree from primary care physicians. Patients were either asymptomatic or exhibited symptoms from up to three organ systems and presented a median eosinophil count of 1.7 × 108/l. Up to eight new clonality analyses or imaging studies per patient were performed after referral. One of these, T-cell receptor analysis, was performed frequently but provided limited information, whereas, e.g., flow cytometry proved more clinically applicable owing to its broader diagnostic range. In total, 51 patients were evaluated and classified as secondary (59%), myeloid neoplasm with PDGFRA rearrangement (2%), idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (31%) and idiopathic hypereosinophilia (8%). CONCLUSION: The value of a multidisciplinary and versatile approach in a highly specialised centre has a positive impact on diagnostic processes as well as on the evaluation of treatment need. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Incidences of overall and site specific cancers in TNFα inhibitor treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other arthritides - a follow-up study from the DANBIO Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of cancer in arthritis patients treated with or without TNFα inhibitors (TNF-I). METHODS: Arthritis patients from the DANBIO database were followed-up for cancer in the Danish Cancer Registry during 2000-2008. RESULTS: Hazard ratio for cancer overall was 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.30) in 3347 TNF-I-treated RA patients compared to non-treated. Excess among TNF-I-treated was found for colon cancer (HR 3.52 (95%CI 1.11-11.15), whereas 6 and 0 ovarian cancer cases were observed in treated and non-treated patients, respectively. Compared to the general population, TNF-I-treated RA patients had increased risk for cancer overall, cancer in lymphatic-haematopoietic tissue and non-melanoma skin cancer, while non-RA patients had no increase in overall cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that TNF-I therapy in routine care is not associated with an overall excess of cancer in arthritis patients, but observed increased risks of colon and ovarian cancer need further investigation.

Tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors are glucocorticoid-sparing in rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease with autoimmune traits of unknown aetiology which primarily affects synovial joints. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are still widely used in RA treatment despite the expanding use of targeted and very efficient agents. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of treatment with tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFi) on GC utilization in real-life practice among Danish RA patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The DANBIO registry is a nationwide rheumatologic database which collects demographic and clinical data. This retrospective study included RA outpatients from a tertiary rheumatologic department recruited from the DANBIO registry who initiated their first TNFi treatment between January 2000 and February 2010 (n = 171). GC dosing during the year before and the year after TNFi initiation were compared. Patients acted as their own control. RESULTS: The median daily prednisolone dose was significantly decreased after initiation of TNFi treatment (p < 0.01). At TNFi initiation, 78 patients (46%) received prednisolone compared with 53 (31%) by the end of follow-up. After TNFi initiation, 30 patients (38%) discontinued prednisolone and in 34 (44%) prednisolone dose was reduced. Similarly, the number of GC injections decreased significantly at 13, 26 and 52 weeks following TNFi initiation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: GC utilization is significantly reduced after initiation of TNFi treatment. Among patients on prednisolone at TNFi onset, prednisolone was withdrawn in one third and the dose was reduced in nearly half. Furthermore, the need for GC injections decreased.

[Smoking--a risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis development]. / Rygning--en risikofaktor for udvikling af reumatoid artritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disabling inflammatory joint disease of unknown aetiology. Genetic and environmental factors are implicated in its pathogenesis. We performed a literature search on MEDLINE, the Cochrane database and EMBASE on the interaction between smoking and RA. It is concluded that previous and current smoking constitute a risk factor for RA development. Smoking acts synergistically with other RA risk factors, including IgM-rheumatoid factor, anti-CCP and shared epitopes. The effect of smoking on the course of RA has not been described in sufficient detail.

Do rheumatoid arthritis patients in clinical practice benefit from switching from infliximab to a second tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of switching to a second biological drug in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Since 2000, Danish RA patients (n = 1021) receiving biological therapy have been registered in the nationwide DANBIO database. The first and second treatment series of patients, who switched therapy before 2005 (n = 235), were analysed for their reasons for switching, Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), DAS28 improvement, European League against Rheumatology (EULAR) response and drug survival. Most patients switched from infliximab to etanercept or adalimumab. RESULTS: Median survivals for switchers' first/second treatment were 37/92 weeks (all patients' first treatment 119 weeks). Reasons for switching were lack of efficacy (LOE; 109 patients), adverse events (AE; 72), other reasons (54). If patients experienced AE to the first drug, 15% had AE to the second. Median DAS28 improvements in first/second treatment at 3 months were: LOE switchers 1.1/1.6; AE switchers 1.5/0.8. In LOE switchers, a good/moderate EULAR response was more prevalent during the second treatment course than during the first (63% versus 54%, p = 0.02). AE switchers achieved similar EULAR responses to both treatments (59% versus 50%, p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: LOE switchers had a better clinical response to the second treatment. AE switchers responded equally well to both treatments, with a low risk of discontinuing the second drug as a result of AE. Drug survival of the switchers' second biological therapy was higher than of the first, but lower than that of non-switchers. No difference between various sequences of drugs were found. Danish post-marketing data thus support that RA patients may benefit from switching biological therapy.