Mepolizumab as a corticosteroid-sparing agent in lymphocytic variant hypereosinophilic syndrome

Anti-IL-5 Pathway Agents in Eosinophilic-Associated Disorders Across the Lifespan

Monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin (IL)-5 pathways have revolutionized the treatment expectations for eosinophilic-associated conditions, particularly in patients with respiratory involvement. Mepolizumab (IL-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody), benralizumab (IL-5 receptor blocker monoclonal antibody), and reslizumab (IL-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody) have collectively contributed to the overall improvement of the disease burden in various conditions. Eosinophilic asthma currently boasts the most robust evidence across all age groups: all three biologics are approved for adults (aged ≥18 years); mepolizumab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also in children (aged ≥ 6 years), while bernalizumab was recently approved by the FDA for patients aged ≥6 years in the USA. In chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, subcutaneous mepolizumab is the only anti-IL-5 therapy approved so far and can be used in adult patients (aged ≥18 years). For eosinophilic esophagitis, conflicting evidence surrounds both mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab, leading to non-approval of these agents by the FDA/EMA. Recently, mepolizumab was approved for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis patients aged ≥6 years or older and for hypereosinophilic syndrome adult patients. A phase III trial proving noninferiority of benralizumab versus mepolizumab in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis has been recently published, while evidence on reslizumab is scant. Overall, current evidence on anti-IL-5 biologics for eosinophilic-associated disorders is mostly focused on adults, whereas data for individuals aged under 18 years and over 65 years are scarce, resulting in a lack of evidence, particularly regarding efficacy, for the use of anti-IL-5 agents in these specific patient populations. This review addresses high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials and real-world post-marketing studies regarding the use of anti-IL-5 therapies for eosinophilic-associated disorders across all age groups, spanning childhood, adulthood, and older age.

Targeting CCR4 with mogamulizumab in refractory CD3-CD4+ lymphocytic-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome

Not available.

World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

The eosinophilias encompass a broad range of non-hematologic (secondary or reactive) and hematologic (primary or clonal) disorders with the potential for end-organ damage.

DIAGNOSIS

Hypereosinophilia (HE) has generally been defined as a peripheral blood eosinophil count greater than 1.5 × 109/L, and may be associated with tissue damage. After the exclusion of secondary causes of eosinophilia, diagnostic evaluation of primary eosinophilias relies on a combination of various tests. They include morphologic review of the blood and marrow, standard cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization, molecular testing and flow immunophenotyping to detect histopathologic or clonal evidence for an acute or chronic hematolymphoid neoplasm.

RISK STRATIFICATION

Disease prognosis relies on identifying the subtype of eosinophilia. After evaluation of secondary causes of eosinophilia, the 2022 World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification endorse a semi-molecular classification scheme of disease subtypes. This includes the major category "myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions" (MLN-eo-TK), and the MPN subtype, "chronic eosinophilic leukemia" (CEL). Lymphocyte-variant HE is an aberrant T-cell clone-driven reactive eosinophila, and idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a diagnosis of exclusion.

RISK-ADAPTED THERAPY

The goal of therapy is to mitigate eosinophil-mediated organ damage. For patients with milder forms of eosinophilia (e.g., <1.5 × 109/L) without symptoms or signs of organ involvement, a watch and wait approach with close follow-up may be undertaken. Identification of rearranged PDGFRA or PDGFRB is critical because of the exquisite responsiveness of these diseases to imatinib. Pemigatinib was recently approved for patients with relapsed or refractory FGFR1-rearranged neoplasms. Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for patients with lymphocyte-variant HE and HES. Hydroxyurea and interferon-α have demonstrated efficacy as initial treatment and in steroid-refractory cases of HES. Mepolizumab, an interleukin-5 (IL-5) antagonist monoclonal antibody, is approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration for patients with idiopathic HES. Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have been used for aggressive forms of HES and CEL, with outcomes reported for limited numbers of patients. Targeted therapies such as the IL-5 receptor antibody benralizumab, IL-5 monoclonal antibody depemokimab, and various tyrosine kinase inhibitors for MLN-eo-TK, are under active investigation.

Mepolizumab incompletely suppresses clinical flares in a pilot study of episodic angioedema with eosinophilia

BACKGROUND

Episodic angioedema with eosinophilia (EAE) is a rare multilineage cyclic syndrome of unknown etiology characterized by episodes of angioedema, myalgia, fatigue, and fever that occur every 3 to 8 weeks and resolve between episodes without therapy. Cyclic elevations in serum IL-5 levels and neutrophils precede the increase in absolute eosinophil count (AEC) in most patients.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the role of IL-5-driven eosinophilia in the clinical manifestations of EAE.

METHODS

An open-label pilot study of mepolizumab (700 mg intravenously monthly for 3 months followed by sequential dose reduction to the Food and Drug Administration-approved dose of 300 mg subcutaneously monthly) was conducted. The primary end point was reduction in the number and severity of clinical symptoms as assessed by patient-reported symptom questionnaires. Secondary end points were greater than or equal to 75% reduction in peak AEC after 1 dose of mepolizumab and sustained reduction in AEC after 3 doses of mepolizumab. Exploratory end points included effects of mepolizumab treatment on other cell lineages (numbers and surface marker expression), levels of plasma mediators, and biomarkers of eosinophil activation.

RESULTS

Four female and 1 male (median age, 45 years) participants with EAE were enrolled. None of the 5 participants experienced a reduction in the number of symptomatic flares on mepolizumab therapy, and 1 participant withdrew before study completion because of lack of improvement. Peak AEC was reduced by 75% or more in 3 participants after the first dose of mepolizumab and in 4 participants after 3 doses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a small cohort of participants with EAE, mepolizumab was unsuccessful in substantially reducing clinical symptoms despite reduction in AEC.

Expert consensus on the use of systemic glucocorticoids for managing eosinophil-related diseases

Eosinophil-related diseases represent a group of pathologic conditions with highly heterogeneous clinical presentation and symptoms ranging from mild to critical. Both systemic and localized forms of disease are typically treated with glucocorticoids. The approval of novel biologic therapies targeting the interleukin-5 pathway can help reduce the use of systemic glucocorticoids (SGC) in eosinophilic diseases and reduce the risk of SGC-related adverse effects (AEs). In this article, a panel of experts from different medical specialties reviewed current evidence on the use of SGC in two systemic eosinophilic diseases: Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with PolyAngiitis (EGPA) and HyperEosinophilic Syndrome (HES); and in two single-organ (respiratory) eosinophilic diseases: Chronic RhinoSinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP) and Severe Asthma with Eosinophil Phenotype (SA-EP), and contrasted it with their experience in clinical practice. Using nominal group technique, they reached consensus on key aspects related to the dose and tapering of SGC as well as on the initiation of biologics as SGC-sparing agents. Early treatment with biologics could help prevent AEs associated with medium and long-term use of SGC.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

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.

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.

JAK inhibition for CD3- CD4+ lymphocytic-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome

Alternatives are urgently needed in patients with CD3^- CD4⁺ lymphocytic-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome (L-HES) requiring high-level steroids or who are unresponsive and/or intolerant to conventional alternative therapies. We report five L-HES patients (44-66 years) with cutaneous involvement (n = 5) and persistent eosinophilia (n = 3) despite conventional therapies, who successfully received JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib n = 1, ruxolitinib n = 4). JAKi led to complete clinical remission in the first 3 months in all (with prednisone withdrawal in four). Absolute eosinophil counts normalized in cases receiving ruxolitinib, while reduction was partial under tofacitinib. After switch from tofacitinib to ruxolitinib, complete clinical response persisted despite prednisone withdrawal. The clone size remained stable in all patients. After 3-13 months of follow-up, no adverse event was reported. Randomized controlled trials are now mandatory to optimize the use of JAKi in L-HES.

Biologic therapies for hypereosinophilic disorders: From tyrosine kinase inhibitors to monoclonal antibodies. Towards an increasingly customized management?

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) encompass a wide range of disorders characterized by persistent peripheral blood hypereosinophilia (HE) (i.e., an eosinophil count ≥1.5 × 10⁹/L and ≥ 10% eosinophils preferably with a minimal duration of 6 months if documentation is available) associated with organ damage and/or dysfunction attributable to tissue eosinophilic infiltrate and release of granule contents. In most cases, HE is associated with atopic conditions/allergies, parasitic infections, medications, autoimmune disorders and/or solid tumors in most cases. More rarely, it can be one of the dominant manifestations of an underlying myeloid/lymphoid neoplasm. With regard to hematological forms, in recent decades the advances in understanding the pathogenic aspects of HES have led to a growing interest in these diseases, and in the 2016 WHO classification multiple subgroups were defined according to the molecular profile with the aim of better characterizing these syndromes and establishing which patients will benefit from specific pharmacological targeted therapies. This review article will provide a comprehensive overview of possible therapeutic approaches for HES in the light of each specific molecular alteration, considering both tyrosine kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, either implemented in clinical practice or currently still under development.

Hypereosinophilic syndrome in Europe: Retrospective study of treatment patterns, clinical manifestations, and healthcare resource utilization

BACKGROUND

The burden of hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) in Europe is not well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical manifestations, and healthcare resource utilization for patients with HES from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

In this retrospective, noninterventional study, data for patients with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of HES were abstracted from medical chart reviews. Patients were aged 6 years or older at the time of HES diagnosis and had 1 or more years of follow-up from the index date (first clinic visit between January 2015 and December 2019). Data on treatment patterns, comorbidities, clinical manifestations, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization were collected from diagnosis or index date to end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Data for 280 patients were abstracted from medical charts by 121 physicians treating HES, with multiple specialties. Most patients (55%) had idiopathic HES, and 24% had myeloid HES; the median number (interquartile range [IQR]) of diagnostic tests per patient was 10 (6-12). The most common comorbidities were asthma (45%) and anxiety or depression (36%). Most patients (89%) used oral corticosteroids; 64% used immunosuppressants or cytotoxic agents, and 44% used biologics. Patients had a median (IQR) of 3 clinical manifestations (1-5), most commonly constitutional (63%), lung (49%), and skin (48%). Twenty-three percent of patients experienced a flare, and 40% had a complete treatment response. Some patients (30%) were hospitalized with a median (IQR) stay of 9 days (5-15) for HES-related issues.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HES across 5 European countries had a substantial disease burden despite extensive oral corticosteroids treatment, highlighting the need for additional targeted therapies.

Approach to the patient with suspected hypereosinophilic syndrome

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) are a heterogenous group of rare disorders with clinical manifestations ranging from fatigue to life-threatening endomyocardial fibrosis and thromboembolic events. Given the broad differential diagnosis of HES, a comprehensive approach is needed to identify potential secondary (treatable) causes and define end-organ manifestations. Classification by clinical HES subtype is also useful in terms of assessing prognosis and guiding therapy. Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of initial therapy in the setting of acute, life-threatening PDGFR mutation-negative HES. Whereas the recent availability of eosinophil-targeted therapies with extraordinary efficacy and little apparent toxicity is changing the treatment paradigm, especially for idiopathic HES and overlap syndromes, questions remain unanswered regarding the choice of agent, impact of combination therapies, and long-term effects of eosinophil depletion. This review provides a case-based discussion of the differential diagnosis of HES, including the classification by clinical HES subtype. Treatment options are reviewed, including novel eosinophil-targeted agents recently approved for the treatment of HES and/or other eosinophil-associated disorders. Primary (myeloid) disorders associated with hypereosinophilia are not be addressed in depth in this review.

Controversies in Allergy: The Potential Role of Biologics as First-Line Therapy in Eosinophilic Disorders

With advances in understanding the role of eosinophils in disease pathogenesis, particularly in the airways, gastrointestinal tract, and skin, targeting eosinophils or the cytokines that lead to their production, activation, and survival has become an increasingly pursued therapeutic approach. Newly developed biologic agents target eosinophils directly, other cells interacting with or activating eosinophils, or cytokines in the type 2 inflammatory pathway with specific antibodies. Current treatment paradigms reserve therapy with biologics for patients refractory to or intolerant of corticosteroids or immunosuppressants. Given accumulating data for safety and efficacy of these biologics, however, there is the question of whether targeted treatments should be used earlier in the treatment algorithm. In this article, we discuss the pros and cons of using biologics as first-line therapy for eosinophilic diseases of the airways, gastrointestinal tract, and skin. We highlight emerging biologic agents and future directions for research, as well as a rationale for the early use of some biologics to prevent tissue damage, disease progression, and organ dysfunction in selected conditions.

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.

World Health Organization-defined eosinophilic disorders: 2022 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

The eosinophilias encompass a broad range of nonhematologic (secondary or reactive) and hematologic (primary or clonal) disorders with potential for end-organ damage.

DIAGNOSIS

Hypereosinophilia (HE) has generally been defined as a peripheral blood eosinophil count greater than 1.5 × 10⁹ /L. After exclusion of secondary causes of eosinophilia, diagnostic evaluation of primary eosinophilias relies on morphologic review of the blood and marrow, standard cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization, next generation sequencing gene assays, and flow immunophenotyping to detect histopathologic or clonal evidence for an acute or chronic hematolymphoid neoplasm.

RISK STRATIFICATION

Disease prognosis relies on identifying the subtype of eosinophilia. After evaluation of secondary causes of eosinophilia, the 2016 World Health Organization endorses a semi-molecular classification scheme of disease subtypes. This includes the major category "myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1 or with PCM1-JAK2", and the myeloproliferative neoplasm subtype, "chronic eosinophilic leukemia, not otherwise specified" (CEL, NOS). Lymphocyte-variant HE is an aberrant T-cell clone-driven reactive eosinophila, and idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a diagnosis of exclusion.

RISK-ADAPTED THERAPY

The goal of therapy is to mitigate eosinophil-mediated organ damage. For patients with milder forms of eosinophilia (eg, < 1.5 × 10⁹ /L) without symptoms or signs of organ involvement, a watch and wait approach with close follow-up may be undertaken. Identification of rearranged PDGFRA or PDGFRB is critical because of the exquisite responsiveness of these diseases to imatinib. Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for patients with lymphocyte-variant HE and HES. Hydroxyurea and interferon-α have demonstrated efficacy as initial treatment and in steroid-refractory cases of HES. Mepolizumab, an interleukin-5 (IL-5) antagonist monoclonal antibody, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with idiopathic HES. The use of the IL-5 receptor antibody benralizumab, as well as other targeted therapies such as JAK2 and FGFR1 inhibitors, is under active investigation.

Targeted Anti-IL-5 Therapies and Future Therapeutics for Hypereosinophilic Syndrome and Rare Eosinophilic Conditions

Eosinophilic inflammation is a component of many atopic diseases such as asthma, and biologics targeting eosinophils have been shown to be effective in subsets of these patients. However, there also are conditions in which eosinophils are the key inflammatory cells responsible for driving tissue damage. In these eosinophilic diseases such as hyper-eosinophilic syndrome, eosinophilic esophagitis, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), the development of biologics inhibiting eosinophilic inflammation have offered targeted therapeutic strategies for patients that have not responded well to typical first line drugs, which often have significant adverse side effects with poor disease modification or recurrent relapse with significant morbidity. IL-5 has long been recognized as the key inflammatory cytokine involved in the priming and survival of eosinophils and their proliferation and maturation in eosinophilic disease. There are a number of trials and case series demonstrating the immunomodulatory benefits of anti-IL-5 therapies in these diseases with good clinical responses. Yet, due to the heterogeneity and rarity of these conditions, anti-IL-5 therapies have not resulted in disease remission for all patients. Clearly, further research into the use of anti-IL-5 therapies in various eosinophilic diseases is needed and ongoing investigation into other immune mechanisms underlying chronic eosinophilic diseases may provide alternative therapies for these challenging conditions.

Treatment of lymphocyte-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome (L-HES): what to consider after confirming the elusive diagnosis

Lymphocyte-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome (L-HES) is a rare disease driven by immunophenotypically aberrant T cells producing eosinophilopoetic cytokines such as interleukin-5 (IL-5). Treatment is challenging because L-HES is relatively steroid resistant and not amenable to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We searched the literature for clinical trials and observational studies, including case reports, of patients treated for L-HES. In all, 25 studies were selected; two were randomised controlled trials of IL-5 blockade, which included some patients with L-HES, and the rest were observational studies. Corticosteroids are often used as first-line therapy, but patients with L-HES have lower response rates than other types of HES. Treatments that reduce symptoms and steroid dependence in some patients include interferon-alpha (IFN-α), anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies, cyclosporine and mycophenolate. These drugs target T-cell activation and proliferation, or IL-5 directly. Although effective, IFN-α and cyclosporine were commonly reported to cause side-effects resulting in discontinuation. Alemtuzumab can induce remissions, but these are generally short lived. The anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies mepolizumab and benralizumab are effective and well tolerated, but with a high rate of relapse once withdrawn. Hydroxyurea, methotrexate, imatinib were unsuccessful in most patients studied. More prospective clinical trials are needed for patients with L-HES.

Eosinophils and eosinophil-associated disorders: immunological, clinical, and molecular complexity

Eosinophils and their mediators play a crucial role in various reactive states such as bacterial and viral infections, chronic inflammatory disorders, and certain hematologic malignancies. Depending on the underlying pathology, molecular defect(s), and the cytokine- and mediator-cascades involved, peripheral blood and tissue hypereosinophilia (HE) may develop and may lead to organ dysfunction or even organ damage which usually leads to the diagnosis of a HE syndrome (HES). In some of these patients, the etiology and impact of HE remain unclear. These patients are diagnosed with idiopathic HE. In other patients, HES is diagnosed but the etiology remains unknown — these patients are classified as idiopathic HES. For patients with HES, early therapeutic application of agents reducing eosinophil counts is usually effective in avoiding irreversible organ damage. Therefore, it is important to systematically explore various diagnostic markers and to correctly identify the disease elicitors and etiology. Depending on the presence and type of underlying disease, HES are classified into primary (clonal) HES, reactive HES, and idiopathic HES. In most of these patients, effective therapies can be administered. The current article provides an overview of the pathogenesis of eosinophil-associated disorders, with special emphasis on the molecular, immunological, and clinical complexity of HE and HES. In addition, diagnostic criteria and the classification of eosinophil disorders are reviewed in light of new developments in the field.

What does elevated TARC/CCL17 expression tell us about eosinophilic disorders?

Eosinophilic disorders encompass a large spectrum of heterogeneous diseases sharing the presence of elevated numbers of eosinophils in blood and/or tissues. Among these disorders, the role of eosinophils can vary widely, ranging from a modest participation in the disease process to the predominant perpetrator of tissue damage. In many cases, eosinophilic expansion is polyclonal, driven by enhanced production of interleukin-5, mainly by type 2 helper cells (Th2 cells) with a possible contribution of type 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s). Among the key steps implicated in the establishment of type 2 immune responses, leukocyte recruitment toward inflamed tissues is particularly relevant. Herein, the contribution of the chemo-attractant molecule thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC/CCL17) to type 2 immunity will be reviewed. The clinical relevance of this chemokine and its target, C-C chemokine receptor 4 (CCR4), will be illustrated in the setting of various eosinophilic disorders. Special emphasis will be put on the potential diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications related to activation of the TARC/CCL17-CCR4 axis.

Eosinophil Knockout Humans: Uncovering the Role of Eosinophils Through Eosinophil-Directed Biological Therapies

The enigmatic eosinophil has emerged as an exciting component of the immune system, involved in a plethora of homeostatic and inflammatory responses. Substantial progress has been achieved through experimental systems manipulating eosinophils in vivo, initially in mice and more recently in humans. Researchers using eosinophil knockout mice have identified a contributory role for eosinophils in basal and inflammatory processes and protective immunity. Primarily fueled by the purported proinflammatory role of eosinophils in eosinophil-associated diseases, a series of anti-eosinophil therapeutics have emerged as a new class of drugs. These agents, which dramatically deplete eosinophils, provide a valuable opportunity to characterize the consequences of eosinophil knockout humans. Herein, we comparatively describe mouse and human eosinophil knockouts. We put forth the view that human eosinophils negatively contribute to a variety of diseases and, unlike mouse eosinophils, do not yet have an identified role in physiological health; thus, clarifying all roles of eosinophils remains an ongoing pursuit.

Lessons learned from targeting eosinophils in human disease

Eosinophils are a minor subset of the granulocyte lineage distinguished by their unique morphology, phenotype, cytoplasmic contents, and function. Evolutionarily, these are ancient cells whose existence has been conserved within vertebrates for millions of years, suggesting that their contribution to innate immunity and other pathologic and homeostatic responses are important to the host. Knowledge regarding the role of eosinophils in health and disease took a leap forward in 2004 with the creation of mouse strains deficient in eosinophils. This advance was paralleled in humans using pharmacology, namely, with the development of drugs capable of selectively reducing and sometimes even eliminating human eosinophils in those receiving these agents. As a result, a more definitive picture of what eosinophils do, and do not do, is emerging. This review will summarize recent advances in our understanding of the role of eosinophils in human disease by focusing mainly on data from clinical studies with anti-eosinophil therapies, even though the first of such agents, mepolizumab, was only approved in the USA in November 2015. Information regarding both efficacy and safety will be highlighted, and where relevant, intriguing data from animal models will also be mentioned, especially if there are conflicting effects seen in humans.

Mepolizumab in Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab (MEP) in the management of hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). A systematic search was performed, and articles published until March 2021 were analyzed. The primary efficacy results evaluated were hospitalization rate related to HES, morbidity (new or worsening), relapses/failure, treatment-related adverse effects, prednisone dosage ≤10 mg/day for ≥8 weeks, and eosinophil count <600/μL for ≥8 weeks. A meta-analysis was conducted, when appropriate. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 255 patients, were included. The studies contemplated the use of MEP 300 mg/SC or 750 mg/IV. According to the evaluation of the proposed outcomes, when relapse rates/therapeutic failures were assessed, there was a 26% reduction with MEP 300 mg/SC (RD=-0.26; 95% CI: -0.44 to -0.08; p=0.04) and 48% reduction with MEP 750 mg/IV (RD=-0.48; 95% CI: -0.67, -0.30; p<0.00001). For the outcomes, prednisone dosage ≤10 mg/day for ≥8 weeks was 48% (RD=0.48; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.62; p<0.00001), and the eosinophil count <600/μL for ≥8 weeks was 51% (RD=0.51; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.63; p<0.00001), both showed a reduction with MEP 300 mg/IV and 750 mg/IV. No statistically significant differences in treatment-related adverse effects outcomes were observed for either dosage (RD=0.09; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.24; p=0.20; RD=0.09; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.29; p=0.39). Despite the positive effects observed for the studied outcomes, the exact significance remains unclear.

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.

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.

Biologics for the Treatment of Allergic Conditions: Eosinophil Disorders

Eosinophil-associated diseases are characterized by a common pathogenetic background, represented by eosinophil-led inflammation and overexpression of interleukin (IL)-5. IL-5 and its receptor are excellent therapeutic targets for eosinophil-associated diseases. Three monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 currently are available: mepolizumab and reslizumab block circulating IL-5 preventing the binding to its receptor, whereas benralizumab binds to IL-5 receptor α. They have a steroid-sparing effect in eosinophil disorders, such as eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and chronic eosinophilic pneumonia. The biotechnological drugs targeting IL-5 are promising therapies; however, further studies are needed.

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.

Autoimmune diseases and immune-checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy: review of the literature and personalized risk-based prevention strategy

Patients with cancer and with preexisting active autoimmune diseases (ADs) have been excluded from immunotherapy clinical trials because of concerns for high susceptibility to the development of severe adverse events resulting from exacerbation of their preexisting ADs. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be safe and effective in this patient population. However, baseline corticosteroids and other nonselective immunosuppressants appear to negatively impact drug efficacy, whereas retrospective and case report data suggest that use of specific immunosuppressants may not have the same consequences. Therefore, we propose here a two-step strategy. First, to lower the risk of compromising ICI efficacy before their initiation, nonselective immunosuppressants could be replaced by specific selective immunosuppressant drugs following a short rotation phase. Subsequently, combining ICI with the selective immunosuppressant could prevent exacerbation of the AD. For the most common active ADs encountered in the context of cancer, we propose specific algorithms to optimize ICI therapy. These preventive strategies go beyond current practices and recommendations, and should be practiced in ICI-specialized clinics, as these require multidisciplinary teams with extensive knowledge in the field of clinical immunology and oncology. In addition, we challenge the exclusion from ICI therapy for patients with cancer and active ADs and propose the implementation of an international registry to study such novel strategies in a prospective fashion.

Gastrointestinal Manifestations of Hypereosinophilic Syndromes and Mast Cell Disorders: a Comprehensive Review

Hypereosinophilic syndrome and mastocytosis are relatively rare proliferative diseases encountered in the general population. However, allergists frequently consider these disorders in the differential of patients presenting with gastrointestinal, pulmonary, cutaneous, and allergic symptoms. Gastrointestinal symptoms are some of the most frequent and/or debilitating aspects of both disease states and in many cases lead to poor quality of life and functional limitation for the patient. They are the third most common clinical manifestation in hypereosinophilic syndrome and have been found to be the most distressful aspect of the disorder in those with systemic mastocytosis. Both eosinophils and mast cells play integral parts in normal gut physiology, but when and how exactly their effector functionality translates into clinically significant disease remains unclear, and the available literature regarding their pathophysiology remains sparse. Eosinophils and mast cells even, in fact, may not necessarily function in isolation from each other but can participate in bidirectional crosstalk. Both are affected by similar mediators and can also influence one another in a paracrine fashion. Their interactions include both production of soluble mediators for specific eosinophil and mast cell receptors (for example, eosinophil recruitment and activation by mast cells releasing histamine and eotaxin) as well as direct physical contact. The mechanistic relationship between clonal forms of hypereosinophilia and systemic mastocytosis has also been explored. The nature of gastrointestinal symptomatology in the setting of both hypereosinophilic syndrome and mast cell disease is frequently manifold, heterogeneous, and the lack of better targeted therapy makes diagnosis and management challenging, especially when faced with a substantial differential. Currently, the management of these gastrointestinal symptoms relies on the treatment of the overall disease process. In hypereosinophilia patients, systemic corticosteroids are mainstay, although steroid-sparing agents such as hydroxyurea, IFN-α, methotrexate, cyclosporine, imatinib, and mepolizumab have been utilized with varying success. In mastocytosis patients, anti-mediator therapy with antihistamines and mast cell stabilization with cromolyn sodium can be considered treatments of choice, followed by other therapies yet to be thoroughly studied, including the role of the low-histamine diet, corticosteroids, and treatment of associated IBS symptoms. Given that both eosinophils and mast cells may have joint pathophysiologic roles, they have the potential to be a combined target for therapeutic intervention in disease states exhibiting eosinophil or mast cell involvement.

Steroid Resistant Hypereosinophilic Syndrome Suspected to Be Caused by Aberrant T-cell Subset

A 53-year-old male presented with cough, skin rash and lymphadenopathies complicated with hypereosinophilia (HE) in the blood, and patchy shadows in both lungs on chest computed tomography. Reactive causes for HE were excluded, and no clinical or laboratory features of myeloproliferative disorders could be found. HE caused by aberrant T-cell subsets was suspected because of serum hyper-immunoglobulin E level, and organ involvement of skin and lungs, though we could show neither aberrant T-cell surface markers nor T-cell receptor gene rearrangement. In the course of steroid monotherapy, tolerable maintenance dose could not be attained and the steroid-sparing agents of hydroxycarbamide, cyclosporine and interferon-α were introduced. However, the therapeutic response was inadequate, and organ involvement of lungs and intestinal tract developed. HE caused by aberrant T-cell subsets has steroid resistance and a risk of malignant transition, and we considered this progressive steroid refractoriness to be a sign of such a transition. Cytotoxic chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation will likely be the next treatment modality in this patient.

Critical Points on the Use of Biologicals in Allergic Diseases and Asthma

Improved understanding of the contribution of immune-inflammatory mechanisms in allergic diseases and asthma has encouraged development of biologicals and small molecules specifically targeting the innate and adaptive immune response. There are several critical points impacting the efficacy of this stratified approach, from the complexity of disease endotypes to the effectiveness in real-world settings. We discuss here how these barriers can be overcome to facilitate the development of implementation science for allergic diseases and asthma.

Consultation for Elevated Blood Eosinophils: Clinical Presentations, High Value Diagnostic Tests, and Treatment Options

The workup of a patient found to have eosinophilia should follow a thorough path with a detailed history and physical examination aimed at eliciting eosinophilic organ involvement, followed by histological confirmation whenever possible. The differential diagnosis of hypereosinophilia is extensive, but a rational approach beyond the history and physical examination including serologic, blood, and bone marrow cell analyses, genetic testing, and radiologic imaging can distinguish many of the causes. Often input from specialists (eg, hematology, dermatology, pulmonary, gastroenterology, and neurology) can help narrow down the possibilities and eventually result in a specific diagnosis. An accurate diagnosis is key to choosing the optimal treatment for a particular condition, and this is certainly true for eosinophilic disorders. Myeloid neoplasms that present with eosinophilia, for example, may respond to medicines that the allergist may be less accustomed to using, such as immunosuppressive agents and kinase inhibitors. Similarly, newly approved biologics that target IL-5 and eosinophils may provide new options for management. What follows is a case-based approach that helps to underscore key features of diagnosis, management, and follow-up when faced with a patient with a potential eosinophil-related disorder.

Novel Biological Therapies in Severe Asthma: Targeting the Right Trait

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation that results in a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. Patients with severe asthma represent a substantial share of consumption of healthcare resources and hospitalization. Moreover, these patients are at risk of increased morbidity and mortality. Recently, several phenotypes and endotypes of asthma have been identified. The identification of specific subtypes of asthma is fundamental for optimizing the clinical benefit of novel treatments. Although in most patients the disease can be controlled by some combination of pharmacologic agents, in some 5-10% of patients the disease remains uncontrolled. Several monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting pathogenetic molecules (e.g., IgE, IL-5, IL- 5Rα, IL-4, IL-13, TSLP) are currently available or under development for the treatment of different forms of severe type 2 asthma. The identification of diagnostic and predictive biomarkers (e.g., IgE, blood eosinophil count, FeNO, periostin, etc.) has revolutioned the field of targeted therapy in severe asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting Th2-driven inflammation are generally safe in adult patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. The long-term safety of these biologics is a relevant issue that should be addressed. Unfortunately, little is known about non-type 2 asthma. Further studies are needed to identify biomarkers to guide targeted therapies of different forms of non-type 2 asthma.

Hypereosinophilic syndromes in the precision medicine era: clinical, molecular aspects and therapeutic approaches (targeted therapies)

Introduction: Hypereosinophilic syndromes are a heterogeneous group of disorders that may be associated with life-threatening organ injury as a result of tissues infiltration by eosinophils. The main goal of therapy is to mitigate eosinophil-mediated organ damage. When possible, therapy should be directed at the underlying etiology. However, even in the absence of any known cause, when organ damage is present, hypereosinophilia must be treated promptly and aggressively to reduce potential morbidity and mortality.Areas covered: Conventional therapies, including corticosteroids, hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide) and interferon-alpha, have shown variable efficacy and a non-negligible toxicity emphasizing the need of new therapeutic strategies based on drugs with different mechanisms of action.Expert opinion: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have a central role among targeted therapies of hypereosinophilic syndromes. Imatinib, initially empirically used based on its activity in chronic myeloid leukemia, achieved preliminary excellent results further confirmed in large series of patients. Third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ponatinib, while active in vitro and in vivo in animals, still deserve confirmation in properly designed clinical trials. In addition, clinical investigation on monoclonal antibodies against interleukin-5, interleukin-5Rα, IgE, and CD52 represents a promising area of research.

World Health Organization-defined eosinophilic disorders: 2019 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

The eosinophilias encompass a broad range of non-hematologic (secondary or reactive) and hematologic (primary, clonal) disorders with potential for end-organ damage.

DIAGNOSIS

Hypereosinophilia has generally been defined as a peripheral blood eosinophil count greater than 1.5 × 10⁹ /L, and may be associated with tissue damage. After exclusion of secondary causes of eosinophilia, diagnostic evaluation of primary eosinophilias relies on a combination of various tests. They include morphologic review of the blood and marrow, standard cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ-hybridization, flow immunophenotyping, and T-cell clonality assessment to detect histopathologic or clonal evidence for an acute or chronic hematolymphoid neoplasm.

RISK STRATIFICATION

Disease prognosis relies on identifying the subtype of eosinophilia. After evaluation of secondary causes of eosinophilia, the 2016 World Health Organization endorses a semi-molecular classification scheme of disease subtypes. This includes the major category "myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1 or with PCM1-JAK2", and the MPN subtype, "chronic eosinophilic leukemia, not otherwise specified" (CEL, NOS). Lymphocyte-variant hypereosinophilia is an aberrant T-cell clone-driven reactive eosinophila, and idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a diagnosis of exclusion.

RISK-ADAPTED THERAPY

The goal of therapy is to mitigate eosinophil-mediated organ damage. For patients with milder forms of eosinophilia (eg, <1.5 × 10⁹ /L) without symptoms or signs of organ involvement, a watch and wait approach with close-follow-up may be undertaken. Identification of rearranged PDGFRA or PDGFRB is critical because of the exquisite responsiveness of these diseases to imatinib. Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for patients with lymphocyte-variant hypereosinophilia and HES. Hydroxyurea and interferon-alfa have demonstrated efficacy as initial treatment and in steroid-refractory cases of HES. In addition to hydroxyurea, second line cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have been used for aggressive forms of HES and CEL, with outcomes reported for limited numbers of patients. The use of antibodies against interleukin-5 (IL-5) (mepolizumab), the IL-5 receptor (benralizumab), as well as other targets on eosinophils remains an active area of investigation.

The spectrum of therapeutic activity of mepolizumab

Introduction: The basis of the development of the anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab was the acknowledgment of the crucial importance of this cytokine in promoting eosinophils production, activation, and survival, which is associated with the eosinophilic asthma phenotype, as well as with other disorders characterized by high levels of eosinophils. Areas covered: All the available literature on the outcomes treatment with mepolizumab in eosinophilic disorders are reviewed, including asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis, esophagitis, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, eosinophilic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Expert opinion: The efficacy of mepolizumab in eosinophilic asthma is clearly demonstrated by a number of controlled trials and by meta-analyses. Among other eosinophilic disorders, controlled trials are available for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and eosinophilic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, as well as other minor eosinophilic disorders, are backed only by case reports and are waiting controlled trials to verify the therapeutic role of mepolizumab.

Benralizumab for PDGFRA-Negative Hypereosinophilic Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Hypereosinophilic syndrome is a group of diseases defined by marked eosinophilia in blood or tissue and eosinophil-related clinical manifestations. Benralizumab is a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 receptor α, which is expressed on human eosinophils.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, we administered a series of three monthly subcutaneous injections of either benralizumab (at a dose of 30 mg) or placebo in 20 symptomatic patients who had PDGFRA-negative hypereosinophilic syndrome and an absolute eosinophil count of at least 1000 cells per cubic millimeter; all the patients were receiving stable therapy (drugs or dietary changes) for this disease. This regimen was followed by an open-label phase, during which the patient's background therapy could be tapered as tolerated, and an extension phase. The primary end point of the randomized phase was a reduction of at least 50% in the absolute eosinophil count at week 12.

RESULTS

During the randomized phase, the primary end point occurred in more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group (9 of 10 patients [90%] vs. 3 of 10 patients [30%], P = 0.02). During the open-label phase, clinical and hematologic responses were observed in 17 of 19 patients (89%) and were sustained for 48 weeks in 14 of 19 patients (74%); in the latter group, in 9 of 14 patients (64%), background therapies could be tapered. Bone marrow and tissue eosinophilia were also suppressed with benralizumab therapy. The most common drug-related adverse events, headache and an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level, occurred in 32% of the patients after the first dose of benralizumab and resolved within 48 hours in all patients. Other adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. Of the many potential predictors of response that were examined, only clinical disease subtype appeared to be associated with the initial response or relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small phase 2 trial, patients with PDGFRA-negative hypereosinophilic syndrome who received benralizumab for 12 weeks had lower absolute eosinophil counts than those who received placebo. During the open-label phase, clinical and hematologic responses were sustained for 48 weeks in 74% of the patients. Adverse events did not limit treatment. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00001406 and NCT02130882.).

Sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin (Siglec) 8 in patients with eosinophilic disorders: Receptor expression and targeting using chimeric antibodies

BACKGROUND

Sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin (Siglec) 8 is selectively expressed on eosinophils, mast cells, and basophils and, when engaged on eosinophils, can cause cell death.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to characterize surface and soluble Siglec-8 (sSiglec-8) levels in normal donors (NDs) and eosinophilic donors (EOs) and assess the efficacy of anti-Siglec-8 antibodies in inducing eosinophil cell death in vitro.

METHODS

Eosinophil expression of Siglec-8 was assessed by using flow cytometry and quantitative PCR. Serum sSiglec-8 levels were measured by means of ELISA. Induction of eosinophil death by IgG₄ (chimeric 2E2 IgG₄) and afucosylated IgG₁ (chimeric 2E2 IgG₁ [c2E2 IgG₁]) anti-Siglec-8 antibodies was evaluated in vitro by using flow cytometry and in vivo in humanized mice.

RESULTS

Siglec-8 was consistently expressed on eosinophils from NDs and EOs and did not correlate with absolute eosinophil count or disease activity. sSiglec-8 levels were measurable in sera from most donors unrelated to absolute eosinophil counts or Siglec-8 surface expression. c2E2 IgG₁ and chimeric 2E2 IgG₄ were equally effective at inducing cell death (Annexin-V positivity) of purified eosinophils from NDs and EOs after overnight IL-5 priming. In contrast, killing of purified eosinophils without IL-5 was only seen in EOs, and natural killer cell-mediated eosinophil killing was seen only with c2E2 IgG₁. Finally, treatment of humanized mice with anti-Siglec antibody led to robust depletion of IL-5-induced eosinophilia in vivo.

CONCLUSIONS

Siglec-8 is highly expressed on blood eosinophils from EOs and NDs and represents a potential therapeutic target for eosinophilic disorders. Enhanced killing of eosinophils in the presence of IL-5 might lead to increased efficacy in patients with IL-5-driven eosinophilia.

Hypereosinophilic syndrome: approach to treatment in the era of precision medicine

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HESs) are a heterogeneous group of rare disorders characterized by peripheral eosinophilia and eosinophilic end organ complications. Conventional therapies, including glucocorticoids and cytotoxic and immunomodulatory agents, have variable efficacy and significant toxicity. Although the recent development of agents that target eosinophils, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, provides the possibility of more effective, less toxic approaches to treatment of HES, there are little available data to guide their use in these conditions. In the following review, the controversies regarding the definition and classification of HES will be discussed, and a pragmatic approach to treatment based on clinically defined HES variants will be presented. An illustrative case will be used to highlight the complexities of treatment selection in HES patients.

Biologic Agents for the Treatment of Hypereosinophilic Syndromes

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) are a heterogeneous group of rare disorders defined by the presence of marked peripheral or tissue eosinophilia resulting in end-organ damage. Although conventional therapies, including glucocorticoids, hydroxyurea, and IFN-α, are initially effective in reducing eosinophilia and symptoms in a majority of patients with platelet-derived growth factor mutation-negative HES, the development of resistance and treatment-related toxicity are common. In contrast, targeted therapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, imatinib, is well tolerated but effective only in the subset of patients with HES with a primary myeloid disorder. Eosinophil-targeted biotherapeutics offer the potential of improved efficacy with few, if any, adverse effects. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of current approaches to the use of conventional HES therapies and a discussion of existing biotherapeutics that target eosinophils and their potential use in the treatment of HES. With the continuing expansion of eosinophil-targeted biotherapeutics, the future for patients with eosinophilic disorders is promising.

Diagnosis and Novel Approaches to the Treatment of Hypereosinophilic Syndromes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is characterized by persistent hypereosinophilia associated with end-organ damage. As our understanding of the pathogenesis of various forms of HES broadens, so does our ability to tailor steroid-sparing therapies for each subtype. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent literature related to the etiology, diagnosis, and management of HES.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mutations involved in subsets of HES can guide the choice of tyrosine kinase inhibitors beyond just imatinib. Several biologics that target interleukin-5 or its receptor have shown beneficial and selective eosinophil-reducing effects in clinical trials for asthma and other disorders including HES. Early clinical data with emerging therapies such as dexpramipexole and anti-Siglec-8 antibody show promise, but need to be confirmed in randomized trials. Several new biologics and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been shown to lower eosinophil numbers, but more randomized trials are needed to confirm efficacy in HES.

Dexpramipexole as an oral steroid-sparing agent in hypereosinophilic syndromes

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HESs) are a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by peripheral eosinophilia and eosinophil-related end organ damage. Whereas most patients respond to glucocorticoid (GC) therapy, high doses are often necessary, and side effects are common. Dexpramipexole (KNS-760704), an orally bioavailable synthetic aminobenzothiazole, showed an excellent safety profile and was coincidentally noted to significantly decrease absolute eosinophil counts (AECs) in a phase 3 trial for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This proof-of-concept study was designed to evaluate dexpramipexole (150 mg orally twice daily) as a GC-sparing agent in HESs. Dual primary end points were (1) the proportion of subjects with ≥50% decrease in the minimum effective GC dose (MED) to maintain AEC <1000/μL and control clinical symptoms, and (2) the MED after 12 weeks of dexpramipexole (MEDD) as a percentage of the MED at week 0. Out of 10 subjects, 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%, 74%) achieved a ≥50% reduction in MED, and the MEDD/MED ratio was significantly <100% (median, 66%; 95% CI, 6%, 98%; P = .03). All adverse events were self-limited, and none led to drug discontinuation. Affected tissue biopsy samples in 2 subjects showed normalization of pathology and depletion of eosinophils on dexpramipexole. Bone marrow biopsy samples after 12 weeks of dexpramipexole showed selective absence of mature eosinophils in responders. Dexpramipexole appears promising as a GC-sparing agent without apparent toxicity in a subset of subjects with GC-responsive HESs. Although the exact mechanism of action is unknown, preliminary data suggest that dexpramipexole may affect eosinophil maturation in the bone marrow. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02101138.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of High-Dose Mepolizumab Treatment for Hypereosinophilic Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Conventional therapies for hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) have variable efficacy and carry significant long-term toxicities. Anti-IL-5 (mepolizumab) therapy has a glucocorticoid (GC)-sparing effect in GC-sensitive HES, but the efficacy of mepolizumab in treatment-refractory HES patients with severe disease has not been examined to date.

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of response to mepolizumab in subjects with severe treatment-refractory HES and compare long-term outcomes in these subjects with HES subjects treated with conventional therapies.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of clinical and laboratory data from 35 HES subjects treated with mepolizumab and 55 HES subjects on conventional therapy, all followed at a single center, was performed.

RESULTS

Peak eosinophilia, GC sensitivity, pulmonary involvement, HES clinical subtype, and pretreatment serum IL-5 were correlated with mepolizumab response. Despite evidence of more severe disease at baseline, mepolizumab-treated subjects had comparable long-term clinical outcomes to HES subjects treated with conventional therapies and reported improvements in therapy-related comorbidities. Subjects managed with mepolizumab monotherapy had fewer disease flares than HES subjects on conventional therapies or mepolizumab-treated HES subjects requiring additional HES therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that mepolizumab is an effective and well-tolerated therapy for HES, but suggests that response is more likely in GC-responsive subjects with idiopathic or overlap forms of HES. A primary benefit of treatment is the reduction of comorbidity due to discontinuation or the reduction of conventional HES therapies. Although subjects who completely discontinued GC had the most benefit, high-dose mepolizumab was a safe and effective salvage therapy for severe, treatment-refractory HES.

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.

Eosinophil Development, Disease Involvement, and Therapeutic Suppression

Human eosinophils have characteristic morphologic features, including a bilobed nucleus and cytoplasmic granules filled with cytotoxic and immunoregulatory proteins that are packaged in a specific manner. Eosinophil production in the bone marrow is exquisitely regulated by timely expression of a repertoire of transcription factors that work together via collaborative and hierarchical interactions to direct eosinophil development. In addition, proper granule formation, which occurs in a spatially organized manner, is an intrinsic checkpoint that must be passed for proper eosinophil production to occur. In eosinophil-associated disorders, eosinophils and their progenitors can be recruited in large numbers into tissues where they can induce proinflammatory organ damage in response to local signals. Eosinophils are terminally differentiated and do not proliferate once they leave the bone marrow. The cytokine IL-5 specifically enhances eosinophil production and, along with other mediators, promotes eosinophil activation. Indeed, eosinophil depletion with anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα is now proven to be clinically beneficial for several eosinophilic disorders, most notably severe asthma, and several therapeutics targeting eosinophil viability and production are now in development. Significant progress has been made in our understanding of eosinophil development and the consequences of tissue eosinophilia. Future research efforts focused on basic eosinophil immunobiology and translational efforts to assist in the diagnosis, treatment selection, and resolution of eosinophil-associated disorders will likely be informative and clinically helpful.

Biologic Therapies for Immunoglobulin E-mediated Food Allergy and Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated food allergy and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are chronic, allergen-mediated disorders characterized by an aberrant TH2 immune response. The development and investigation of biologics for the treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy and eosinophilic esophagitis have provided further insight into the pathophysiology and management of these disorders. This article provides an overview of biologic therapies that are being investigated or have potential as treatments for IgE-mediated food allergy and eosinophilic esophagitis. Identification of EoE phenotypes that are responsive to biologics and investigation of biologics combined with other therapies may help elucidate a role for biologics in EoE.