Hypereosinophilic syndromes - An enigmatic group of disorders with an intriguing clinical spectrum and challenging treatment

Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndromes and rare dysimmune conditions associated with hyper-eosinophilia in practice: An innovative multidisciplinary approach

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) represent a group of rare dis-immune conditions characterized by blood hyper-eosinophilia and eosinophilic related burden. Especially the idiopathic subtype (I-HES) is particularly difficult to diagnose because of its heterogeneous clinical presentation, the lack of specific findings on physical exam, lab tools, and imaging informative enough to unequivocally confirm the diagnosis and the overlap with other entities, including eosinophilic organ-diseases or systemic dis-immune conditions other than I-HES (from atopy to eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis [EGPA], the last often extremely difficult to distinguish from HES). Taken together, all the features mentioned above account for an extremely difficult early recognition HES and on-time referral to a specialized centre. The referral itself is challenging due to a not univocal specialist identification, because of the variability of physicians managing HES in different settings (including allergist/clinical immunologist, haematologist, internal medicine doctors, pulmonologist, rheumatologist). Furthermore, the approach in terms of personalized treatment identification and follow-up plan (timing, organ assessment), is poorly standardized. Further translational and clinical research is needed to address the mentioned unmet needs, but on practical grounds increasing the overall clinicians' awareness on HES and implementing healthcare pathways for HES patients represent a roadmap that every clinician might try to realize in his specific setting. The present review aims at providing an overview about the current challenges and unmet needs in the practical approach to HES and rare hypereosinophilic allergo-immunological diseases, including a proposal for an innovative multidisciplinary organizational model.

Managing Patients with Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: A Statement from the Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC)

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) encompasses a heterogeneous and complex group of different subtypes within the wider group of hypereosinophilic disorders. Despite increasing research interest, several unmet needs in terms of disease identification, pathobiology, phenotyping, and personalized treatment remain to be addressed. Also, the prospective burden of non-malignant HES and, more in general, HE disorders is currently unknown. On a practical note, shortening the diagnostic delay and the time to an appropriate treatment approach probably represents the most urgent issue, even in light of the great impact of HES on the quality of life of affected patients. The present document represents the first action that the Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC) has finalized within a wider project aiming to establish a collaborative national network on HES (InHES-Italian Network on HES) for patients and physicians. The first step of the project could not but focus on defining a common language as well as sharing with all of the medical community an update on the most recent advances in the field. In fact, the existing literature has been carefully reviewed in order to critically integrate the different views on the topic and derive practical recommendations on disease identification and treatment approaches.

An Unusual Case of Immune Complex-Mediated Membranoproliferative Glomerulonephritis as Renal Manifestation of Idiopathic Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (IHES) is a disorder characterized by abnormal and persistent peripheral blood hypereosinophilia (eosinophil count ≥ 1.5 × 109/L and ≥10% eosinophils) with duration ≥ 6 months, associated organ damage, and/or dysfunction attributable to tissue eosinophilic infiltrate of unknown cause. IHES affects different organs such as the heart, lungs, nervous system, and skin, with renal involvement being rare in this condition.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case of a young patient with IHES and immune complex-mediated membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis with nephrotic syndrome, as a rare renal manifestation. We discuss the clinical, analytical, and histopathologic renal and hematologic features, comparing them with other reported cases in the literature.

Echocardiographic monitoring of myocardial function in a female patient with right heart Loeffler endocarditis at thrombotic stage after Epstein-Barr-virus infection

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic echocardiography is usually the first non-invasive imaging modality for the detection of Loeffler endocarditis at thrombotic stage. In the recent decade 3D echocardiography and deformation imaging already proved as a helpful tool for the monitoring of left and right ventricular heart disease.

CASE PRESENTATION

The present case illustrates the diagnostic role of 3D echocardiography and deformation imaging in the acute stage of right sided Loeffler endocarditis in a 70-year-old Western European (German) woman. This case proves that myocardial involvement due to inflammation can be detected at subclinical stages by speckle tracking echocardiography. Acute deterioration of left and right ventricular function and the early response to prednisolone therapy can objectively be monitored. In addition, alterations of effective stroke volume can quantitatively be assessed by 3D right ventricular volumetry with exclusion of thrombus formation in the volume measurements.

CONCLUSION

This case underlines the importance of 3D echocardiography and deformation imaging as a helpful diagnostic tool in disease management in the acute phase of Loeffler endocarditis at thrombotic stage.

Low-dose anti-IL 5 treatment in idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome: towards a precision medicine approach for remission maintenance

Mepolizumab at the dose of 300 mg/4 weeks has been recently approved as an add-on therapy for patients with uncontrolled hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) without any identifiable non-hematologic secondary cause. According to the available real-life evidence mepolizumab 300 mg and 100 mg, licensed for severe eosinophilic asthma, are comparable in terms of drug efficacy. However, the clinical rationale for selecting one dose or the other has not been explored. We investigated the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab 100 mg in idiopathic HES (I-HES) patients as a steroid sparing strategy for disease remission maintenance by assessing clinical conditions, blood eosinophil count (BEC) and adverse events at baseline and at 3-6-12 months follow-up. Overall, 11 patients were enrolled (females 4-36%) with a median age of 62 years (IQR 55.0-72.0). At 3-month visit both prednisone daily dose and BEC significantly decreased from baseline, whilst a substantial improvement of Brief fatigue inventory score (BFI) was not recorded before the 6 months assessment. More than 70% of patients completely stopped prednisone at 12-months follow-up, without any flare in terms of BEC and BFI. No adverse event was registered. Although larger studies are needed, our report firstly describes that in a well-defined population, diagnosed with I-HES and in disease remission, low dose mepolizumab is a safe and effective steroid-sparing option for remission maintenance. It suggests that a personalized treatment dose might be explored according to the disease classification and activity at the time of biologic treatment start.

Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome presenting as cardiac tamponade and multiorgan dysfunction

Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome is characterised by the overproduction of eosinophils with tissue infiltration, leading to multiorgan dysfunction. Its heterogenous presentation makes the diagnosis challenging and easy to miss. A woman in her 70s was admitted with chest pain and shortness of breath. Diagnostic testing showed elevated cardiac enzymes, an ejection fraction of 45% and pericardial effusion. Pericardiocentesis helped her symptoms significantly. Cardiac catheterisation revealed patent coronary arteries. She was diagnosed with myopericarditis and discharged on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. She returned the following week with worsening chest pain, dyspnoea and diarrhoea. Chest imaging showed bilateral infiltrates. Diagnostic testing showed eosinophilic predominance in peripheral blood (59%), pericardial fluid (37%) and bronchoalveolar lavage (31%). After a negative infectious workup, she was started on glucocorticoids and responded favourably. She was discharged on steroids. Mepolizumab was initiated outpatient, and steroids were discontinued. Mepolizumab was discontinued after 2 years while monitoring her symptoms and eosinophil counts.

Revisiting idiopathic eosinophilic myositis: towards a clinical-pathological continuum from the muscle to the fascia and skin

OBJECTIVES

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies are mainly defined by inflammatory infiltrates within the muscle (lymphocytes and macrophages). Eosinophil muscle infiltration has been described in idiopathic eosinophilic myositis (IEM) and rarely in EF. This study aimed to further delineate the nosological frame of idiopathic eosinophil muscle infiltration through the exhaustive analysis of IEM and EF patients.

METHODS

This multicentre retrospective case series included IEM patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2022. IEM inclusion criteria were eosinophilic muscle infiltration with myositis pathological features, after the exclusion of differential diagnoses. An additional group of EF patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2022 was constituted. Inclusion criteria were an EF diagnosis and fascia thickening with inflammatory infiltrate.

RESULTS

A total of 20 IEM cases and 10 EF cases were included. The median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 65 (49-70) years; there were 18 males. Data analysis delineated four subgroups: focal EM (FEM, n = 3), diffuse EM (DEM, n = 6), eosinophilic myofasciitis (EMF, n = 11) and EF (n = 10). FEM represented a limited and benign form of myositis. DEM cases presented objective muscle impairment with eosinophilic muscle infiltration. EMF patients presented subjective muscle impairment (myalgia, 55%), fasciitis (on histology and/or imaging), eosinophilic muscle infiltration and frequent hypereosinophilia (55%). EF patients presented myalgia (50%), muscle lesions on histology with fascia-restricted inflammatory infiltrates with (60%) or without (40%) eosinophils.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of IEM and EF patient characteristics delineates four subgroups (FEM, DEM, EMF and EF) in terms of clinical, laboratory, imaging, pathological and outcome specificities, and proposes an adapted diagnostic and care management approach.

Idiopathic Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: A Case Report

Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome is a rare condition characterized by persistent severe eosinophilia and organ damage without any apparent cause. A 20-year-old male patient with no significant medical history was admitted to the Emergency Department with retrosternal chest pain, fatigue and asthenia. EKG showed ST elevation I, II, III, aVF, V4-V6 and blood tests showed elevated troponin levels. An echocardiogram was performed revealing severe global left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Further evaluations included cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and endomyocardial biopsy, confirming the diagnosis of eosinophilic myocarditis. The patient was started on systemic corticosteroid therapy, resulting in clinical improvement. The patient was discharged after 12 days of hospitalization, following a recovery of biventricular function and he was told to continue oral corticosteroid therapy at home. Further investigation ruled out other causes of hypereosinophilic syndromes, therefore the diagnosis of idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome was assumed. Despite the attempt to reduce corticosteroid therapy, the eosinophil count became elevated again, so the dosage was increased and associated with azathioprine with subsequent favorable analytical evolution. This case highlights the challenges in diagnosing and managing idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome and emphasizes the importance of prompt treatment initiation to prevent complications.

The multidisciplinary approach to eosinophilia

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

Management of eosinophil-associated inflammatory diseases: the importance of a multidisciplinary approach

Elevated eosinophil counts in blood and tissue are a feature of many pathological processes. Eosinophils can migrate and accumulate in a wide variety of tissues and, by infiltrating a target organ, can mediate the development of several inflammatory diseases. The normalization of eosinophilia is a common biomarker of a treatable trait and can also be used as a prognostic and predictive biomarker since it implies a reduction in type 2 inflammation that contributes to disease pathogenesis. Biological therapies targeting this cell type and its proinflammatory mediators have been shown to be effective in the management of a number of eosinophilic diseases, and for this reason they constitute a potential common strategy in the treatment of patients with various multimorbidities that present with type 2 inflammation. Various biological options are available that could be used to simultaneously treat multiple target organs with a single drug, bearing in mind the need to offer personalized treatments under the umbrella of precision medicine in all patients with eosinophil-associated diseases (EADs). In addition to reviewing these issues, we also discuss a series of perspectives addressing the management of EAD patients from a multidisciplinary approach, with the collaboration of health professionals from different specialties who manage the different multimorbidities that frequently occur in these patients. We examine the basic principles of care that this multidisciplinary approach must cover and present a multidisciplinary expert opinion regarding the ideal management of patients with EADs, from diagnosis to therapeutic approach and follow-up.

[Eosinophilia: hypereosinophilic syndrome vs. eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis]

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is defined as a peripheral eosinophil count of > 1500/μl (assessed twice at an interval of ≥ 2 weeks) and an eosinophil-induced organ damage. Idiopathic HES is differentiated from primary (clonal or neoplastic) HES and secondary (reactive) HES, depending on the etiology. Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is categorized as a secondary form of HES and is characterized by hypereosinophilia and vasculitis of small to medium-sized vessels and can be associated with an antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA). The treatment of HES is dependent on the etiology. Clonal HES is treated according to the respective genetic aberration, e.g. with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chemotherapy and allogenic stem cell transplantation. Secondary forms should be treated according to the underlying cause (e.g. parasitic infection). The treatment of EGPA is carried out with immunosuppressants depending on the disease stage and disease activity. Conventional drugs, such as glucocorticoids (GC), cyclophosphamide (CYC) and methotrexate (MTX) or biologics, such as the monoclonal anti-IL5 antibody mepolizumab are commonly used. Mepolizumab is also a good option for the treatment of idiopathic HES.

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.

Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Hypereosinophilic Syndrome

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a diverse group of disorders characterized by peripheral blood eosinophilia of 1.5 × 10⁹/L (1,500/μL) or greater with evidence of end-organ damage attributable to eosinophilia and no other cause of the end-organ damage. The HES is rare, especially in children. This review aims to provide best practices in diagnosis and treatment of HES in children, including how to differentiate between primary and secondary causes of hypereosinophilia; how to distinguish the differences in clinical presentation, treatment, and prognosis of HES in children and adults; and how to identify key steps in the evaluation and management of HES in children.