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.

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.

Evaluation and Differential Diagnosis of Persistent Marked Eosinophilia.

Peripheral blood eosinophilia is commonly encountered in clinical practice. The causes of peripheral blood eosinophilia are varied, ranging from benign eosinophilia to malignancy. A careful history and physical examination along with directed clinical evaluation may help determine the cause. When uncontrolled, peripheral blood eosinophilia may result in end-organ damage and life-threatening complications. This article summarizes the differential diagnosis and evaluation of persistent marked eosinophilia.

Hypereosinophilic syndrome: a multicenter, retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and response to therapy.

BACKGROUND: Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a heterogeneous group of rare disorders defined by persistent blood eosinophilia > or =1.5 x 10(9)/L, absence of a secondary cause, and evidence of eosinophil-associated pathology. With the exception of a recent multicenter trial of mepolizumab (anti-IL-5 mAb), published therapeutic experience has been restricted to case reports and small case series. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to collect and summarize baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics in a large, diverse cohort of patients with HES and to review responses to treatment with conventional and novel therapies. METHODS: Clinical and laboratory data from 188 patients with HES, seen between January 2001 and December 2006 at 11 institutions in the United States and Europe, were collected retrospectively by chart review. RESULTS: Eighteen of 161 patients (11%) tested were Fip1-like 1-platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (FIP1L1-PDGFRA) mutation-positive, and 29 of 168 patients tested (17%) had a demonstrable aberrant or clonal T-cell population. Corticosteroid monotherapy induced complete or partial responses at 1 month in 85% (120/141) of patients with most remaining on maintenance doses (median, 10 mg prednisone equivalent daily for 2 months to 20 years). Hydroxyurea and IFN-alpha (used in 64 and 46 patients, respectively) were also effective, but their use was limited by toxicity. Imatinib (used in 68 patients) was more effective in patients with the FIP1L1-PDGFRA mutation (88%) than in those without (23%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study, the largest clinical analysis of patients with HES to date, not only provides useful information for clinicians but also should stimulate prospective trials to optimize treatment of HES.

Cardiovascular manifestations of hypereosinophilic syndromes.

The hypereosinophilic syndromes (HESs) are characterized by persistent marked eosinophilia (>1500 eosinophils/mm(3)), the absence of a primary cause of eosinophilia (such as parasitic or allergic disease), and evidence of eosinophil-mediated end organ damage. Cardiovascular complications of HES are a major source of morbidity and mortality in these disorders. The most characteristic cardiovascular abnormality in HES is endomyocardial fibrosis. Patients who have an HES also may develop thrombosis, particularly in the cardiac ventricles, but also occasionally in deep veins. Because of the rarity of these disorders, specific guidelines for the management of the cardiac and thrombotic complications of HES are lacking. This article reviews the diagnosis and management of the cardiovascular manifestations of HES.