Effect of cyclosporine on lymphocytic variant hypereosinophilic syndrome

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.

Comparison of cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroid for treating drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome: A retrospective 20-year single-centre study in South Korea

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a potentially life-threatening hypersensitive disorder. Cyclosporine has been indicated for adverse cutaneous drug eruptions. However, studies evaluating its clinical effectiveness in DRESS syndrome have been rare. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of cyclosporine in DRESS syndrome compared to that of systemic corticosteroids.

METHODS

In the cyclosporine group, oral cyclosporine was administered twice a day for a total of 2-3 mg/kg/day for 1 week, and subsequently reduced to 1-1.5 mg/kg/day for extended treatment. In the corticosteroid group, intravenous or oral methylprednisolone was administered at 1-1.5 mg/kg/day for 1 week, with variable tapering plans. Laboratory changes before and after treatment, hospitalized days, treatment periods, and time to normalization from clinical manifestations in each group were statistically evaluated. Adverse effects of these regimens were observed during the entire treatment period.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. The cyclosporine and corticosteroid group had 27 and 53 patients, respectively. Total leucocyte and eosinophil counts, liver enzymes, and C-reactive proteins were significantly decreased after treatment in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences observed in hospitalized days, treatment period, and time to normalization from clinical manifestations between the two groups. The corticosteroid group experienced relatively more adverse effects than the cyclosporine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Cyclosporine was discovered to be clinically effective in DRESS syndrome and this study suggests that cyclosporine could be a feasible primary therapeutic option for DRESS syndrome.

Characterization of disease flares and impact of mepolizumab in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome

In patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), mepolizumab reduces the incidence of HES-related clinical signs and symptoms (flares). However, reports characterizing flare manifestations are limited. The double-blind, parallel-group 200622 trial (NCT02836496) enrolled patients ≥12 years old with HES for ≥6 months, ≥2 flares in the previous year, and screening blood eosinophil count ≥1000 cells/μL. Patients maintained ≥4 weeks stable HES therapy, before randomization (1:1) to 4-weekly subcutaneous mepolizumab (300 mg) or placebo, plus baseline HES therapy, for 32 weeks. This post hoc analysis investigated flare manifestations and duration by re-examining the Core Assessments form and narrative recorded for each flare during the study. Flare symptoms were retrospectively categorized into constitutional, dermatological, respiratory, nasal, gastrointestinal, neurologic and other. The most frequently reported flare symptoms were constitutional (94% of flares), dermatological (82% of flares) and respiratory (72% of flares); flares reported in patients receiving mepolizumab compared with placebo were generally similar in terms of the frequency of symptoms reported. Mepolizumab was associated with a shorter median (range) duration of flares (10.0 [4, 126] days) versus placebo (26.0 [1, 154] days). In patients with HES, flares were associated with symptoms linked to multiple organ systems highlighting the challenges faced for treating flares.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02836496, identifier NCT02836496.

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.

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.

Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome presenting as monoplegia

Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (IHES) is a rare disorder. It is characterised by persistent eosinophilia with eosinophil mediated tissue infiltration and organ dysfunction. Clinical features of IHES vary widely, as it may present with dermatological, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, cardiac or neurological symptoms. We hereby report a female patient who presented with sudden onset upper limb monoplegia and after thorough investigations she was diagnosed as a case of IHES. She was managed with corticosteroids and improved with same.

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.

Eosinophil-derived neurotoxin as a biomarker for disease severity and relapse in recalcitrant atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Eosinophils are encountered in many skin diseases, but the role of eosinophils in atopic dermatitis (AD) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the role of serum eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), and total IgE as a biomarker of disease severity and relapse in severe recalcitrant AD.

METHODS

We enrolled 99 patients with AD: 37 with severe recalcitrant AD, 20 with severe AD, and 42 with mild to moderate AD. We examined the difference in serum level of total IgE, ECP, and EDN between the groups and whether any correlation existed between disease severity and ECP or EDN. Lastly, difference in levels of ECP or EDN between those who experienced relapse was examined in the severe recalcitrant group.

RESULTS

Serum levels of total IgE, ECP, and EDN were significantly higher in the severe recalcitrant AD group and severe AD group compared with the mild to moderate AD group. No significant difference was found in serum levels of total IgE, ECP, and EDN between the severe recalcitrant group and severe group. EDN had a significant positive correlation with the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis. No significant correlation was found between EDN and ECP. In the severe recalcitrant group, 29.7% of patients experienced relapse, and EDN was significantly higher in those who experienced relapse. The cutoff value of EDN for predicting relapse was 64.5.

CONCLUSION

EDN correlated with the disease severity of AD. EDN may predict relapse in severe recalcitrant AD. The EDN serum level could be considered a candidate molecule as a clinical biomarker for evaluating AD disease activity and a predictor of relapse.

Management of hypereosinophilia in tropical settings

Hypereosinophilia includes a group of commonly encountered clinical situations with symptoms ranging from mild and clinically innocuous to devastating presentations with high morbidity and mortality. The presentations and complications can be easily missed if the clinician is unaware of the diverse entities responsible for hypereosinophilia. The hypereosinophilic syndromes encompass entities that are associated with varying degrees of organ dysfunction either directly due to eosinophilic infiltration or as a result of substances secreted by the eosinophils. These conditions may be neoplastic or reactive in aetiology and a diligent search for secondary causes is essential. Evaluation and management algorithms in the tropical setting and in developing countries may differ from elsewhere. A review of hypereosinophilia and hypereosinophilic syndromes is presented with a diagnostic and therapeutic decision making algorithm modified for use in the tropical setting.