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.

Benralizumab versus Mepolizumab for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a vasculitis characterized by eosinophilic inflammation. Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-5α receptor expressed on eosinophils, may be an option for treating EGPA. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3, randomized, active-controlled noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of benralizumab as compared with mepolizumab. Adults with relapsing or refractory EGPA who were receiving standard care were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive benralizumab (30 mg) or mepolizumab (300 mg) subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary end point was remission at weeks 36 and 48 (prespecified noninferiority margin, -25 percentage points). Secondary end points included the accrued duration of remission, time to first relapse, oral glucocorticoid use, eosinophil count, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients underwent randomization (70 assigned to each group). The adjusted percentage of patients with remission at weeks 36 and 48 was 59% in the benralizumab group and 56% in the mepolizumab group (difference, 3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to 18; P = 0.73 for superiority), showing noninferiority but not superiority of benralizumab to mepolizumab. The accrued duration of remission and the time to first relapse were similar in the two groups. Complete withdrawal of oral glucocorticoids during weeks 48 through 52 was achieved in 41% of the patients who received benralizumab and 26% of those who received mepolizumab. The mean (±SD) blood eosinophil count at baseline was 306.0±225.0 per microliter in the benralizumab group and 384.9±563.6 per microliter in the mepolizumab group, decreasing to 32.4±40.8 and 71.8±54.4 per microliter, respectively, at week 52. Adverse events were reported in 90% of the patients in the benralizumab group and 96% of those in the mepolizumab group; serious adverse events were reported in 6% and 13%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Benralizumab was noninferior to mepolizumab for the induction of remission in patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MANDARA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04157348.).

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.

Unmet needs and evidence gaps in hypereosinophilic syndrome and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis.

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) are rare systemic inflammatory disorders with overlapping symptoms, elevated eosinophil counts, and heterogenous clinical presentations. Although progress has been made in recent years, there are substantial gaps in our understanding of the pathologic mechanisms involved in these diseases, as well as numerous unmet needs relating to both diagnosis and patient management. For example, in most cases of HES, the underlying cause of hypereosinophilia is unknown, while in EGPA, although a polygenic genetic susceptibility has been found, understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms remains largely elusive. Delineating differences between certain disease variants may be challenging, and there are no reliable predictive markers of disease course. In addition, the current diagnostic criteria for HES and classification criteria for EGPA are not easy to implement in a nonspecialist setting, and specialist referral pathways need to be signposted more clearly. Furthermore, disease-specific activity scores need to be developed to aid the assessment of treatment effects, and improved biomarkers are needed to aid with treatment stratification. In this review, we outline the limitations of our current understanding of HES and EGPA and highlight areas for future work, which ultimately should help improve patient management and outcomes.

Proposed refined diagnostic criteria and classification of eosinophil disorders and related syndromes.

Eosinophilia and eosinophil activation are recurrent features in various reactive states and certain hematologic malignancies. In patients with hypereosinophilia (HE), HE-induced organ damage is often encountered and may lead to the diagnosis of a hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). A number of known mechanisms and etiologies contribute to the development of HE and HES. Based on these etiologies and the origin of eosinophils, HE and HES are divided into primary forms where eosinophils are clonal cells, reactive forms where an underlying reactive or neoplastic condition is detected and eosinophils are considered to be "non-clonal" cells, and idiopathic HE and HES in which neither a clonal nor a reactive underlying pathology is detected. Since 2012, this classification and the related criteria have been widely accepted and regarded as standard. However, during the past few years, new developments in the field and an increasing number of markers and targets have created a need to update these criteria and the classification of HE and HES. To address this challenge, a Working Conference on eosinophil disorders was organized in 2021. In this conference, a panel of experts representing the relevant fields, including allergy, dermatology, hematology, immunology, laboratory medicine, and pathology, met and discussed new markers and concepts as well as refinements in definitions, criteria and classifications of HE and HES. The outcomes of this conference are presented in this article and should assist in the diagnosis and management of patients with HE and HES in daily practice and in the preparation and conduct of clinical trials.

Insights from Social Media on the Patient Experience of Living With Rare Eosinophil-Driven Diseases.

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) and hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) are driven by persistently high eosinophil numbers, causing damage to tissues and organs. As rare diseases, they are often underappreciated by healthcare professionals. Using a social listening analysis, we collected patient and caregiver comments relating to EGPA and HES made on online social platforms between 1 January 2019 and 31 May 2020, in English, French, and German. Results were classified into key areas of interest. In total, 746 comments with consent to publish were collected mentioning EGPA, and 39 were identified mentioning HES. The most common theme was sharing of personal experiences (EGPA: 77%; HES: 100%). Diagnosis, including diagnosis delays and misdiagnosis, was mentioned in 33% of comments for EGPA, and 82% for HES. Other common themes included seeking and giving advice, symptoms, and treatments. These insights highlight the views and unmet needs of people living with EGPA and HES. Further work should improve disease awareness and effective communications among healthcare professionals and patients with these conditions.

Mepolizumab Reduces Hypereosinophilic Syndrome Flares Irrespective of Blood Eosinophil Count and Interleukin-5.

BACKGROUND: Mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 (IL-5) antibody, reduces disease flares in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). Factors predicting treatment response are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess mepolizumab efficacy by baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC) and serum IL-5 level in patients with HES. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from the phase III study assessing mepolizumab in patients with HES (NCT02836496). Patients 12 years old or older, with HES for 6 or more months, 2 or more flares in the previous year, and BEC ≥1,000 cells/µL at screening were randomized (1:1) to 4-weekly subcutaneous mepolizumab (300 mg) or placebo, plus baseline HES therapy, for 32 weeks. The proportion of patients experiencing 1 or more flares (wk 32), annualized flare rate, and proportion of patients with change from baseline in Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) item 3 (wk 32), were analyzed by baseline BEC (<1500/≥1500 to <2500/≥2500 cells/µL). Flare outcomes were assessed by baseline serum IL-5 (<7.81/≥7.81 pg/mL). RESULTS: Across baseline BEC subgroups, mepolizumab reduced the proportion of patients experiencing 1 or more flares by 63% to 90% and flare rate by 58% to 84% (treatment-by-eosinophil interaction P = .76 and P = .90, respectively); patients had improved BFI item 3 score with mepolizumab versus placebo (cells/µL: <1,500: 54% vs 37%; ≥1,500 to <2,500: 47% vs 31%; ≥2,500: 61% vs 0%; treatment-by-eosinophil interaction P = .42). Most patients had undetectable baseline serum IL-5 levels; among these, mepolizumab versus placebo reduced the proportion of patients with 1 or more flares (77%) and flare rate (67%). CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab was efficacious in the patients with HES studied, irrespective of baseline BEC. Undetectable IL-5 levels should not preclude mepolizumab treatment.

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.

Eosinophils and eosinophilic immune dysfunction in health and disease.

The functions ascribed to eosinophils have classically been limited to host defence against certain parasitic infections and potentially deleterious effects in the setting of specific diseases that are associated with elevated eosinophil counts in blood and/or tissue. The ability to induce eosinophil depletion either experimentally in animal models or through targeted therapies in humans has extended our understanding of the roles played by eosinophils in health and homeostasis as well as in disease pathogenesis. When associated with human disease aetiology, the eosinophil takes on a pathogenic rather than a protective role. This maladaptive response, called "eosinophilic immune dysfunction" herein, appears central to exacerbation pathogenesis and disease control in severe asthma and may be involved in the aetiology of other eosinophil-related conditions ranging from organ-system-limited diseases such as phenotypic subsets of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis to more broadly systemic diseases such as eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and hypereosinophilic syndrome. In this review, we describe the evidence supporting eosinophilic functions related to health and homeostasis and explore the contribution of eosinophilic immune dysfunction to human disease.

Hypereosinophilic syndrome: considerations for the cardiologist.

Eosinophil-mediated endomyocardial damage is a well-known complication in patients with hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES). Although management and survival have improved significantly, some patients continue to develop severe cardiomyopathy as a direct consequence of uncontrolled hypereosinophilia. Cardiologists play a key role in early detection and treatment. At the early generally asymptomatic stage, related to subendocardial eosinophilic infiltrates, elevation of the biomarker of cardiac damage (serum troponin) and cardiac MRI are the best tools for diagnosis. As disease progresses, patients typically develop intracardiac mural thrombi and may experience variable degrees of heart failure due to valve damage and/or subendocardial fibrosis, all of which are more readily detectable with traditional echocardiographic investigation. New imaging modalities such as strain imaging and specific sequences in MRI offer the perspective of detecting subtle perturbations and distinguishing inflammatory versus fibrotic stages. Endomyocardial biopsy may help in difficult settings, namely, when blood eosinophilia is not prominent, but may be non-contributive due to sampling issues or eosinophil degranulation or replacement by fibrosis, and must always be performed after careful consideration of the risk:benefit ratio. Although treatment of the HES itself should be managed by clinicians with expertise in this rare disorder with the aim of lowering eosinophil counts to prevent and treat eosinophil-mediated organ damage and dysfunction, cardiologists play a key role in managing the associated cardiopathy. There are no consensual disease-specific guidelines for treating eosinophil-mediated thrombotic complications and cardiopathy, which should be managed according to classical international recommendations.

From DREAM to REALITI-A and beyond: Mepolizumab for the treatment of eosinophil-driven diseases.

Effective treatment of inflammatory diseases is often challenging owing to their heterogeneous pathophysiology. Understanding of the underlying disease mechanisms is improving and it is now clear that eosinophils play a complex pathophysiological role in a broad range of type 2 inflammatory diseases. Standard of care for these conditions often still includes oral corticosteroids (OCS) and/or cytotoxic immune therapies, which are associated with debilitating side effects. Selective, biological eosinophil-reducing agents provide treatment options that improve clinical symptoms associated with eosinophilic inflammation and reduce OCS use. Mepolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes interleukin-5, the major cytokine involved in eosinophil proliferation, activation, and survival. Mepolizumab is approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and hypereosinophilic syndrome. Additionally, the efficacy of add-on mepolizumab has been observed in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with an eosinophilic phenotype. Here, we review the development, approval, and real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, from the DREAM to REALITI-A studies, and describe how knowledge from this journey extended to the use of mepolizumab and other biologics across a broad spectrum of eosinophilic diseases.

Safety and Efficacy of Mepolizumab in Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: An Open-Label Extension Study.

BACKGROUND: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study (200622) showed that mepolizumab reduces disease flares for patients with uncontrolled FIP1-like-1-platelet-derived growth factor receptor α-negative hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and two or more flares in the previous year. OBJECTIVE: To further characterize the safety, clinical benefit, and pharmacodynamics of mepolizumab. METHODS: Eligible patients from both treatment arms of the double-blind study could enter an open-label extension study (205203; NCT03306043) to receive 4-weekly mepolizumab (300 mg subcutaneously) plus background therapy for 20 weeks. Primary end points were safety-based; other end points included flare rates and changes from baseline in mean daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose and blood eosinophil count. RESULTS: Of 104 patients who completed the double-blind study, 98% (previous placebo, n = 52; previous mepolizumab, n = 50) enrolled in the open-label extension. Overall, 66 of patients reported adverse events (AEs) (65%), 15 reported treatment-related AEs (15%), and nine reported serious AEs (9%). No events were fatal. The annualized flare rate (95% confidence interval) in the previous placebo and previous mepolizumab groups was 0.37 (0.16-0.86) and 0.14 (0.04-0.49) events/y, respectively. Of 72 patients receiving OCS during weeks 0 to 4, 20 (28%; previous placebo, n = 14; previous mepolizumab, n = 6) achieved 50% or greater reductions in mean daily dose during weeks 16 to 20. At week 20, blood eosinophil count was reduced by 89% in patients previously receiving placebo and remained reduced for those previously receiving mepolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Extended mepolizumab treatment was associated with a positive benefit-risk profile. Continued control of disease flares and blood eosinophil counts, plus reductions in OCS use, were observed with mepolizumab in patients with FIP1-like-1-platelet-derived growth factor receptor α-negative HES.

CD3-CD4+ Lymphocytic Variant Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: Diagnostic Tools Revisited.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients with lymphocytic variant hypereosinophilic syndrome (L-HES) is challenging, and has important prognostic and therapeutic implications. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to assess diagnostic tools for L-HES and to develop evidence-based diagnostic recommendations. METHODS: Biomarkers of T-cell-driven disease were compared between patients with L-HES versus idiopathic HES (I-HES) variants. Those performed routinely (serum immunoglobulin levels, T-cell phenotyping, T-cell receptor [TCR] gene rearrangement patterns) were collected from medical files, whereas others were prospectively assessed on stored blood samples (serum CCL17/thymus and activation regulated chemokine [TARC] levels, in vitro cytokine production). RESULTS: This study included 48 patients with I-HES and 20 with L-HES associated with a CD3-CD4+ T-cell subset, including 7 with less than 5% aberrant cells. Neither increased serum immunoglobulin levels nor clonal TCR gene rearrangements were sufficiently sensitive or specific for L-HES. In contrast, systematically enhanced expression of the T-cell surface antigens CD2, CD5, CD45RO, and CD95 by these cells allowed for accurate detection by flow cytometry. Serum CCL17/TARC levels were significantly higher in patients with L-HES compared with those with I-HES, and a threshold of 3000 pg/mL allowed for detection of all subjects with L-HES with 75% specificity. Quantification of intracytoplasmic cytokine production by flow cytometry is the most reliable method for detection of enhanced type 2 cytokine expression, most notably for IL-4 and IL-13. CONCLUSION: Adapting the standard of procedure for T-cell phenotyping in patients with unexplained hypereosinophilia is currently the most reliable means of identifying those with CD3-CD4+ L-HES.

Efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in hypereosinophilic syndrome: A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-IL-5 therapy is a potential treatment for patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), although its clinical efficacy is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of mepolizumab versus placebo in patients with HES. METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial was conducted across 39 centers in 13 countries. Eligible patients had FIP1L1-PDGFRA-negative HES, experienced 2 or more flares (worsening of HES-related symptoms or blood eosinophil count requiring therapeutic escalation) in the previous 12 months, and had a screening blood eosinophil count greater than or equal to 1000 cells/µL. Patients were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous mepolizumab (300 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 32 weeks, plus existing HES therapy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with 1 or more flares (worsening of HES-related symptoms necessitating therapy escalation or ≥2 courses of blinded rescue oral corticosteroids) during the study; in addition, patients who withdrew early from the study were counted as having a flare. Safety end points were also assessed. RESULTS: The proportion of patients experiencing 1 or more flares/withdrawing from the study was 50% lower with mepolizumab versus placebo (15 of 54 [28%] vs 30 of 54 [56%]; P = .002). Logistic regression analysis was consistent with the primary analysis (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = .003). Similar proportions of patients in the mepolizumab and placebo groups experienced on-treatment adverse events (48 of 54 [89%] vs 47 of 54 [87%]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, mepolizumab significantly reduced the occurrence of flares in patients with HES, with no new safety signals identified.

Eosinophilia Associated With CD3-CD4+ T Cells: Characterization and Outcome of a Single-Center Cohort of 26 Patients.

Background: Lymphocytic variant hypereosinophilic syndrome is characterized by marked over-production of eosinophilopoietic factor(s) by dysregulated T cells leading to eosinophil expansion. In most cases, these T cells are clonal and express a CD3-CD4+ phenotype. As this is a rare disorder, presenting manifestations, disease course, treatment responses, and outcome are not well-characterized. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective single-center observational study, we reviewed medical files of all patients with persistent hypereosinophilia seen between 1994 and 2019 in whom CD3-CD4+ T cells were detected. Data collection included clinical and biological findings at presentation, treatment responses, disease course, and serial CD3-CD4+ T cell counts. Results: Our cohort comprises 26 patients, including 2 with hypereosinophilia of undetermined significance. All 24 symptomatic patients had cutaneous lesions and/or angioedema, and fasciitis was present in several cases. The aberrant T cell subset represented 2% or less total lymphocytes in 11 subjects. TCR gene rearrangement patterns on whole blood were polyclonal in these cases, while they all had serum CCL17/TARC levels above 1,500 pg/ml. Disease manifestations were mild and did not require maintenance therapy in roughly one third of the cohort, while two thirds required long-term oral corticosteroids and/or second-line agents. Among these, interferon-alpha was the most effective treatment option with a response observed in 8/8 patients, one of whom was cured of disease. Treatment had to be interrupted in most cases however due to poor tolerance and/or development of secondary resistance. Anti-interleukin-5 antibodies reduced blood eosinophilia in 5/5 patients, but clinical responses were disappointing. A sub-group of 5 patients had severe treatment-refractory disease, and experienced significant disease- and treatment-related morbidity and mortality, including progression to T cell lymphoma in three. Conclusions: This retrospective longitudinal analysis of the largest monocentric cohort of CD3-CD4+ T cell associated lymphocytic variant hypereosinophilic syndrome published so far provides clinicians confronted with this rare disorder with relevant new data on patient presentation and outcome that should help tailor therapy and follow-up to different levels of disease severity. It highlights the need for novel therapeutic options, especially for the subset of patients with severe treatment-refractory disease. Future research efforts should be made toward understanding CD3-CD4+ T cell biology in order to develop new treatments that target primary pathogenic mechanisms.

Oral Corticosteroid Use for the Treatment of Chronic Eosinophilic Disease: A Patient's and His Physician's Experience.

This article, coauthored by a patient with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) initially presenting as severe eosinophilic asthma and his physician-specialist, discusses the use and management of oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment. It also considers the importance of early diagnosis of a rare disease and patient education. The patient describes his journey from progressive worsening of asthma and eventual diagnosis of EGPA to long-term OCS treatment and then participation in a clinical trial for this rare disease, involving the introduction of targeted biologic therapy with OCS tapering. The physician describes the importance of patient referral to obtain a correct diagnosis and optimal maintenance treatment, the balance between risk of adverse events associated with long-term OCS use and benefits of disease control, and various aspects of patient participation in clinical trials. Finally, the patient describes the role of continual patient education in the management of disease and OCS treatment. These considerations can apply to all chronic inflammatory diseases requiring maintenance OCS treatment.Funding: AstraZeneca.

Targeting the Interleukin-5 Pathway for Treatment of Eosinophilic Conditions Other than Asthma.

Improved understanding of the contribution of eosinophils to various chronic inflammatory conditions, most notably allergic asthma, has encouraged development of monoclonal antibodies specifically targeting mediators and surface receptors involved in eosinophil expansion and activation. The pivotal role of interleukin-5 (IL-5) in eosinophil biology, its high specificity for this leukocyte subset, and its involvement in the majority of eosinophilic conditions make it a very enticing target for treatment of eosinophil-mediated disorders. Two types of antibodies have been developed to target eosinophils: antibodies against IL-5 (mepolizumab and reslizumab), and an antibody against the IL-5-receptor-alpha-chain (IL-5Rα) (benralizumab). Both types of antibodies prevent IL-5 from engaging its receptor and in addition, anti-IL-5Rα antibodies induce target-cell lysis. They have been shown to reduce circulating eosinophil counts rapidly in humans with various disorders. Herein, a brief overview of the role of IL-5 in eosinophil biology will be presented, followed by a description of the development and characteristics of antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor. Results of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of these new antibodies in diseases (other than eosinophilic asthma) with prominent tissue eosinophilia are reviewed, followed by safety considerations and potential future applications.

FOXP1 is a regulator of quiescence in healthy human CD4+ T cells and is constitutively repressed in T cells from patients with lymphoproliferative disorders.

The forkhead box P1 (FOXP1) transcription factor has been shown to regulate the generation and maintenance of quiescent naïve murine T cells. In humans, FOXP1 expression has been correlated with overall survival in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), although its regulatory role in T-cell function is currently unknown. We found that FOXP1 is normally expressed in all human leukocyte subpopulations. Focusing on primary human CD4+ T cells, we show that nuclear expression of FOXP1 predominates in naïve cells with significant downregulation detected in memory cells from blood and tonsils. FOXP1 is repressed following in vitro T-cell activation of naïve T cells, and later re-established in memory CD4+ T cells, albeit at lower levels. DNA methylation analysis revealed that epigenetic mechanisms participate in regulating the human FOXP1 gene. ShRNA-mediated FOXP1 repression induces CD4+ T cells to enter the cell cycle, acquire memory-like markers and upregulate helper T-cell differentiation genes. In patients with lymphoproliferative disorders, FOXP1 expression is constitutionally repressed in the clonal T cells in parallel with overexpression of helper T-cell differentiation genes. Collectively, these data identify FOXP1 as an essential transcriptional regulator for primary human CD4+ T cells and suggest its potential important role in the development of PTCL.