Biologic Therapy in Rare Eosinophil-Associated Disorders: Remaining Questions and Translational Research Opportunities.

Rare eosinophil-associated disorders (EADs), including hypereosinophilic syndrome, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders, are a heterogeneous group of conditions characterized by blood and/or tissue hypereosinophilia and eosinophil-related clinical manifestations. Although the recent availability of biologic therapies that directly and indirectly target eosinophils has the potential to dramatically improve treatment options for all EADs, clinical trials addressing their safety and efficacy in rare EADs have been relatively few. Consequently, patient access to therapy is limited for many biologics, and the establishment of evidence-based treatment guidelines has been extremely difficult. In this regard, multicenter retrospective collaborative studies focusing on disease manifestations and treatment responses in rare EADs have provided invaluable data for physicians managing patients with these conditions and helped identify important questions for future translational research. During the Clinical Pre-Meeting Workshop held in association with the July 2023 biennial meeting of the International Eosinophil Society in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, the successes and limitations of pivotal multicenter retrospective studies in EADs were summarized, and unmet needs regarding the establishment of guidelines for use of biologics in rare EADs were discussed. Key topics of interest included: 1) clinical outcome measures, 2) minimally invasive biomarkers of disease activity, 3) predictors of response to biologic agents, and 4) long-term safety of eosinophil depletion. Herein, we report a summary of these discussions, presenting a state-of-the-art overview of data currently available for each of these topics, the limitations of the data, and avenues for future data generation through implementation of multidisciplinary and multicenter studies.

Mepolizumab has clinical benefits including oral corticosteroid sparing irrespective of baseline EGPA characteristics.

Background: The Mepolizumab in Relapsing or Refractory EGPA (MIRRA) trial (GSK ID: 115921/NCT02020889) demonstrated that mepolizumab increased remission time and reduced oral corticosteroid (OCS) use compared with placebo in patients with relapsing or refractory eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). The present analysis investigated the impact of baseline characteristics on clinical outcomes and characterised the OCS-sparing effect of mepolizumab. Methods: In a phase 3, randomised controlled trial for patients with EGPA (MIRRA), patients received standard of care plus mepolizumab 300 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The accrued duration of remission, the proportion of patients in remission at weeks 36 and 48, and the proportion of patients with clinical benefit (remission, OCS or relapse-related) were assessed according to baseline EGPA characteristic subgroups (post hoc). Mepolizumab-related OCS-sparing benefits were also quantified. Results: Accrued duration of remission and the proportion of patients in remission at weeks 36 and 48 were greater with mepolizumab than placebo across the baseline subgroups of refractory disease, immunosuppressant use, EGPA duration, relapse number and OCS use ≤20 mg·day-1. The proportion of patients with clinical benefit was greater with mepolizumab versus placebo (range 76-81% versus 25-39%), irrespective of immunosuppressant use or EGPA duration. Patients treated with mepolizumab versus placebo accrued significantly more weeks on OCS ≤4 mg·day-1 (OR 5.06, 95% CI 2.47-10.38) and had a mean of 1423.1 mg less per-patient OCS exposure over 52 weeks. Conclusions: Mepolizumab treatment provided benefits to patients with EGPA across varying baseline clinical characteristics and can be considered an OCS-sparing treatment in EGPA.

HES and EGPA: Two Sides of the Same Coin.

Elevated eosinophil counts are implicated in multiple diseases, from relatively prevalent organ-specific disorders such as severe eosinophilic asthma, to rare multisystem disorders such as hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Patients with these multisystem diseases, often associated with markedly elevated eosinophil counts, have a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality due to delayed diagnosis or inadequate treatment. A thorough workup of symptomatic patients presenting with elevated eosinophil counts is essential, although in some cases the differential diagnosis may remain difficult because of overlapping presentations between HES and EGPA. Notably, first- and second-line treatment options and response to therapy may differ for specific HES and EGPA variants. Oral corticosteroids are the first line of treatment for HES and EGPA, except when HES is the result of specific mutations driving clonal eosinophilia that are amenable to targeted treatment with a kinase inhibitor. Cytotoxic or immunomodulatory agents may be required for those with severe disease. Novel eosinophil-depleting therapies, such as those targeting interleukin 5 or its receptor, have shown great promise in reducing blood eosinophil counts, and reducing disease flares and relapses in patients with HES and EGPA. Such therapies could reduce the side effects associated with long-term oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressant use. This review provides a pragmatic guide to approaching the diagnosis and clinical management of patients with systemic hypereosinophilic disorders. We highlight practical considerations for clinicians and present cases from real-world clinical practice to show the complexity and challenges associated with diagnosing and treating patients with HES and EGPA.

Biologics and Hypereosinophilic Syndromes: Knowledge Gaps and Controversies.

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) are a heterogeneous group of disorders defined by blood and/or tissue hypereosinophilia and clinical manifestations attributable to the eosinophilia. Although various clinical subtypes of HES have been described, the general approach to therapy in all subtypes has focused on the reduction of blood and tissue eosinophilia to improve symptoms and halt disease progression. Until recently, this typically involved the use of corticosteroids and/or other immunosuppressive or cytotoxic drugs with significant toxicity. Whereas imatinib, the first targeted therapy approved for treatment of HES, has dramatically changed the prognosis of patients with primary (myeloid) forms of HES, it is ineffective in patients with other HES subtypes. For these nonmyeloid patients with HES, the development of eosinophil-targeting biologics (most notably, mepolizumab, the first biologic approved for the treatment of HES) has been transformative. Nevertheless, important issues remain with respect to the efficacy and safety of these biologics in the treatment of the varied subtypes of HES. Moreover, with the increasing number of commercially available biologics with direct or indirect effects on eosinophils, questions related to the choice of initial biologic, potential reasons for biologic failure, and treatment options in the setting of incomplete response are becoming increasingly common.

False-Negative Testing for FIP1L1::PDGFRA by Fluorescence in situ Hybridization Is a Frequent Cause of Diagnostic Delay.

The imatinib-sensitive fusion gene FIP1L1::PDGFRA is the most frequent molecular abnormality identified in patients with eosinophilic myeloid neoplasms. Rapid recognition of this mutation is essential given the poor prognosis of PDGFRA-associated myeloid neoplasms prior to the availability of imatinib therapy. We report a case of a patient in whom delayed diagnosis resulted in cardiac transplantation for eosinophilic endomyocardial fibrosis. The delay in diagnosis was due, in part, to a false-negative result in fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for FIP1L1::PDGFRA. To explore this further, we examined our cohort of patients presenting with confirmed or suspected eosinophilic myeloid neoplasms and found 8 additional patients with negative FISH results despite a positive reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test for FIP1L1::PDGFRA. More importantly, false-negative FISH results delayed the median time to imatinib treatment by 257 days. These data emphasize the importance of empiric imatinib therapy in patients with clinical features suggestive of PDGFRA-associated disease.

Clinical Benefit of Mepolizumab in Eosinophilic Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis for Patients With and Without a Vasculitic Phenotype.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate mepolizumab's efficacy in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) with and without a vasculitic phenotype. METHODS: The MIRRA study (NCT02020889/GSK ID: 115921) included adults with relapsing/refractory EGPA and 4 or more weeks of stable oral glucocorticoids (OG). Patients received mepolizumab (300 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or placebo, plus standard of care for 52 weeks. This post hoc analysis assessed EGPA vasculitic phenotype using antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) history, baseline Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), and Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) score. Coprimary endpoints included accrued remission over 52 weeks and proportion in remission at Week 36 and Week 48. Remission was defined as a BVAS equal to 0 and an OG dose of 4 or more mg/day of a prednisone equivalent. Types of relapses (vasculitis, asthma, and sino-nasal) and EGPA vasculitic characteristics (by study remission status) were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included (n = 68, mepolizumab and placebo). Irrespective of history of ANCA positivity status, baseline BVAS, or baseline VDI, the accrued remission duration and the proportion of patients in remission at Weeks 36 and 48 were greater with mepolizumab compared with placebo. With mepolizumab, remission at both Week 36 and Week 48 was achieved by 54% of patients with and 27% of patients without a history of ANCA positivity compared with 0% and 4%, respectively (placebo); 45% of patients with a BVAS of 0 and 22% of patients with BVAS of greater than 0 compared with 5% and 2%, respectively (placebo); and 29% of patients with a VDI score of less than 5 and 37% of patients with a VDI score of 5 or more compared with 6% and 0%, respectively (placebo). Mepolizumab reduced all types of relapses as compared with placebo. Baseline vasculitic characteristics (neuropathy, glomerulonephritis, alveolar hemorrhage, palpable purpura, and ANCA positivity) were generally similar among patients with and without remission. CONCLUSION: Mepolizumab is associated with clinical benefits for patients with and without a vasculitic EGPA phenotype.

Esophageal Epithelium and Lamina Propria Are Unevenly Involved in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The nature of the involvement of esophageal tissue in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear. We estimated the intrabiopsy site agreements of the EoE Histologic Scoring System (EoEHSS) scores for the grade (degree) and stage (extent) of involvement of the esophageal epithelial and lamina propria and examined if the EoE activity status influenced the intrabiopsy site agreement. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and EoEHSS scores collected as part of the prospective Outcome Measures for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases Across Ages study were analyzed. A weighted Cohen's kappa agreement coefficient (k) was used to calculate the pairwise agreements for proximal:distal, proximal:middle, and middle:distal esophageal biopsy sites, separately for grade and stage scores, for each of the 8 components of EoEHSS. A k > 0.75 was considered uniform involvement. Inactive EoE was defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-powered field. RESULTS: EoEHSS scores from 1263 esophageal biopsy specimens were analyzed. The k for the stage of involvement of the dilated intercellular spaces across all 3 sites in inactive EoE was consistently greater than 0.75 (range, 0.87-0.99). The k for lamina propria fibrosis was greater than 0.75 across some of the biopsy sites but not across all 3. Otherwise, the k for all other features, for both grade and stage, irrespective of the disease activity status, was 0.75 or less (range, 0.00-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Except for the extent of involvement of dilated intercellular spaces in inactive EoE, the remaining epithelial features and lamina propria are involved unevenly across biopsy sites in EoE, irrespective of the disease activity status. This study enhances our understanding of the effects of EoE on esophageal tissue pathology.

Mucosal Microbiota Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Eosinophilic Gastritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the mucosal microbiota associated with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and eosinophilic gastritis (EoG) in a geographically diverse cohort of patients compared to controls. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of individuals with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID) in the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, including pediatric and adult tertiary care centers. Eligible individuals had clinical data, mucosal biopsies, and stool collected. Total bacterial load was determined from mucosal biopsy samples by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Community composition was determined by small subunit rRNA gene amplicons. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine mucosal biopsies were evaluated corresponding to 93 EoE, 17 EoG, and 29 control specimens (18 esophageal) from 10 sites across the United States. Dominant community members across disease activity differed significantly. When comparing EoE and EoG with controls, the dominant taxa in individuals with EGIDs was increased ( Streptococcus in esophagus; Prevotella in stomach). Specific taxa were associated with active disease for both EoE ( Streptococcus , Gemella ) and EoG ( Leptotrichia ), although highly individualized communities likely impacted statistical testing. Alpha diversity metrics were similar across groups, but with high variability among individuals. Stool analyses did not correlate with bacterial communities found in mucosal biopsy samples and was similar in patients and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Dominant community members ( Streptococcus for EoE, Prevotella for EoG) were different in the mucosal biopsies but not stool of individuals with EGIDs compared to controls; taxa associated with EGIDs were highly variable across individuals. Further study is needed to determine if therapeutic interventions contribute to the observed community differences.

Genetically defined individual reference ranges for tryptase limit unnecessary procedures and unmask myeloid neoplasms.

Serum tryptase is a biomarker used to aid in the identification of certain myeloid neoplasms, most notably systemic mastocytosis, where basal serum tryptase (BST) levels >20 ng/mL are a minor criterion for diagnosis. Although clonal myeloid neoplasms are rare, the common cause for elevated BST levels is the genetic trait hereditary α-tryptasemia (HαT) caused by increased germline TPSAB1 copy number. To date, the precise structural variation and mechanism(s) underlying elevated BST in HαT and the general clinical utility of tryptase genotyping, remain undefined. Through cloning, long-read sequencing, and assembling of the human tryptase locus from an individual with HαT, and validating our findings in vitro and in silico, we demonstrate that BST elevations arise from overexpression of replicated TPSAB1 loci encoding canonical α-tryptase protein owing to coinheritance of a linked overactive promoter element. Modeling BST levels based on TPSAB1 replication number, we generate new individualized clinical reference values for the upper limit of normal. Using this personalized laboratory medicine approach, we demonstrate the clinical utility of tryptase genotyping, finding that in the absence of HαT, BST levels >11.4 ng/mL frequently identify indolent clonal mast cell disease. Moreover, substantial BST elevations (eg, >100 ng/mL), which would ordinarily prompt bone marrow biopsy, can result from TPSAB1 replications alone and thus be within normal limits for certain individuals with HαT.

Urine eosinophil-derived neurotoxin: A potential marker of activity in select eosinophilic disorders.

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers of eosinophilic disease activity, especially in the context of novel therapies that reduce blood eosinophil counts, are an unmet need. Absolute eosinophil count (AEC) does not accurately reflect tissue eosinophilia or eosinophil activation. Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare the reliability of plasma and urine eosinophil major basic protein 1, eosinophil cationic protein, eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), and eosinophil peroxidase measurement and to evaluate the usefulness of eosinophil granule protein (EGP) measurement for the assessment of disease activity in patients with eosinophil-associated diseases treated with mepolizumab, benralizumab, or dexpramipexole. METHODS: Eosinophil granule protein concentrations were measured in serum, plasma, and urine from healthy volunteers and patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), and eosinophilic asthma using a multiplex assay. RESULTS: Urine EGP concentrations remained stable, whereas serum and plasma EGP concentrations increased significantly with delayed processing. Plasma (p) EDN, but not urine (u) EDN, concentration correlated with AEC and negatively correlated with prednisone dose. Both pEDN and uEDN decreased significantly following treatment of HES patients with benralizumab and EGPA patients with mepolizumab. uEDN appeared to increase with clinical relapse in both patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of EGP in urine is noninvasive and unaffected by cellular lysis. Although plasma and urine EDN concentrations showed a similar pattern following benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment, the lack of correlation between AEC or prednisone dose and uEDN concentrations suggests that measurement of uEDN may provide a potential biomarker of disease activity in patients with HES and EGPA.

A Clinical Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Development, Consensus, and Future Directions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE. METHODS: A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity. RESULTS: Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality.

A Clinical Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Development, Consensus, and Future Directions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE. METHODS: A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity. RESULTS: Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality.

Benralizumab Completely Depletes Gastrointestinal Tissue Eosinophils and Improves Symptoms in Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of targeted eosinophil biologics in eosinophilic esophagitis have yielded mixed results. Possible explanations include incomplete eosinophil depletion with anticytokine (anti-IL-5) treatments and/or irreversible fibrotic tissue changes contributing to symptomatology. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the therapeutic effect of eosinophil depletion in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome with varied eosinophilic gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. METHODS: Hematologic, histologic, endoscopic, and clinical symptoms for a subset (n = 7) of hypereosinophilic syndrome patients with GI tissue eosinophilia enrolled in a phase 2 clinical trial of benralizumab (anti-IL-5RA) were assessed before and after treatment (NCT02130882). RESULTS: Blood and GI tissue eosinophils were completely depleted in all segments of the GI tract, and all patients reported improved GI symptoms, in some cases as early as after the first monthly dose. Some patients had recurrent symptomatic flares without recurrent peripheral or tissue eosinophilia, in most cases after prolonged symptomatic remission and in the setting of liberalization of dietary restrictions and/or tapering of background therapy. Although eosinophil-associated histologic changes improved in all segments, epithelial changes persisted in the esophagus and stomach in patients with recurrent disease flares even after 1 year of treatment. Serum tryptase and GI mast cells were generally unchanged with treatment, and increases were not associated with disease flares. Serum levels of IL-4 and IL-5 increased with benralizumab treatment (both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Benralizumab treatment completely depleted blood and GI tissue eosinophilia in patients with eosinophilic GI disorders, but clinical response, while encouraging, was heterogeneous. Residual symptoms in some patients may reflect persistent epithelial changes in the upper GI tract.

An International, Retrospective Study of Off-Label Biologic Use in the Treatment of Hypereosinophilic Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) often requires the use of immunomodulators with substantial side effect profiles. The emergence of biologics offers an alternative treatment modality. OBJECTIVE: To examine real-world practice data to describe the safety and consequences of various biologics suspected to directly or indirectly affect eosinophilic inflammation for the treatment of HES. METHODS: Retrospective data from 13 centers were collected via an online Research Electronic Data Capture repository. Inclusion criteria included (1) peripheral eosinophil count of 1,500/mm3 or greater without a secondary cause; (2) clinical manifestations attributable to the eosinophilia; and (3) having received mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), benralizumab (afucosylated anti-IL-5 receptor α), omalizumab (anti-IgE), alemtuzumab (anti-CD52), dupilumab (anti-IL-4 receptor α), or reslizumab (anti-IL-5) outside a placebo-controlled clinical trial. RESULTS: Of the 151 courses of biologics prescribed for 121 patients with HES, 59% resulted in improved HES symptoms and 77% enabled tapering of other HES medications. Overall, 105 patients were receiving daily systemic glucocorticoids at the time of a biologic initiation and were able to reduce the glucocorticoid dose by a median reduction of 10 mg of daily prednisone equivalents. Biologics were generally safe and well-tolerated other than infusion reactions with alemtuzumab. Thirteen of 24 patients had clinical improvement after switching biologics and nine patients responded to increasing the dose of mepolizumab after a lack of response to a lower dose. CONCLUSIONS: Biologics may offer a safer treatment alternative to existing therapies for HES, although the optimal dosing and choice for each subtype of HES remain to be determined. Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and intersite differences in data collection and availability of each biologic.

Prospective Endoscopic Activity Assessment for Eosinophilic Gastritis in a Multisite Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic gastritis (EG) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the stomach characterized by eosinophil-predominant gastric mucosal inflammation and gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate endoscopic features in a large series of children and adults with EG to better understand the endoscopic manifestations and develop a standardized instrument for investigations. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected as part of the Consortium for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, a national collaborative network. Endoscopic features were prospectively recorded using a system specifically developed for EG, the EG Endoscopic Reference System (EG-REFS). Correlations were made between EG-REFS and clinical and histologic features. RESULTS: Of 98 patients with EG, 65 underwent assessments using EG-REFS. The most common findings were erythema (72%), raised lesions (49%), erosions (46%), and granularity (35%); only 8% of patients with active histology (≥30 eosinophils/high-power field) exhibited no endoscopic findings. A strong correlation between EG-REFS scores and physician global assessment of endoscopy severity was demonstrated (Spearman r = 0.84, P < 0.0001). The overall score and specific components of EG-REFS were more common in the antrum than in the fundus or body. EG-REFS severity was significantly correlated with active histology, defined by a threshold of ≥30 eosinophils/high-power field (P = 0.0002). DISCUSSION: Prospective application of EG-REFS identified gastric features with a strong correlation with physician global assessment of endoscopic activity in EG. Endoscopic features demonstrated greater severity in patients with active histology and a predilection for the gastric antrum. Further development of EG-REFS should improve its utility in clinical studies.

Approach to Eosinophilia Presenting With Pulmonary Symptoms.

Eosinophilia with pulmonary involvement is characterized by the presence of peripheral blood eosinophilia, typically ≥500 cells/mm3, by pulmonary symptoms and physical examination findings that are nonspecific, and by radiographic evidence of pulmonary disease and is further supported by histopathologic evidence of tissue eosinophilia in a lung or pleura biopsy specimen and/or increased eosinophils in BAL fluid, usually >10%. Considering that there are a variety of underlying causes of eosinophilia with pulmonary manifestations and overlapping clinical, laboratory, and radiologic features, it is essential to approach the evaluation of eosinophilia with pulmonary findings systematically. In this review, we will describe a case presentation and discuss the differential diagnosis, a directed approach to the diagnostic evaluation and supporting literature, the current treatment strategies for pulmonary eosinophilia syndromes, and the levels of evidence underlying the recommendations, where available. Overall, optimal management of eosinophilic lung disease presentations are directed at the underlying cause when identifiable, and the urgency of treatment may be guided by the presence of severe end-organ involvement or life-threatening complications. When an underlying cause is not easily attributable, management of eosinophilia with pulmonary involvement largely relies on eosinophil-directed interventions, for which biologic therapies are increasingly being used.