Romidepsin is an effective and well-tolerated therapy in CD3−CD4+ lymphocyte-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome: A case report

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.

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.

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.