Klion, Amy D.

Background. Some patients who present with clinical features consistent with idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES; absolute eosinophil count (AEC) ≥1.5 x 10 9/L with related end organ damage) are ultimately diagnosed with a myeloid neoplasm. Although FIP1L1::PDGFRA is the most common molecular abnormality in this setting, many other fusion genes, point mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities have been implicated in driving primary (neoplastic) eosinophilia. Given the poor prognosis of these disorders in the absence of treatment and the availability of targeted therapies for many of the driver mutations, it is becoming increasingly important to rapidly identify the underlying genetic alteration. In this regard, the expense and variable sensitivity of molecular diagnostic tests remains problematic. Although clinical features have been reported to distinguish between PDGFRA-associated myeloid neoplasms and D816V KIT-positive systemic mastocytosis with hypereosinophilia, little is known about the clinical phenotypes of other subsets of patients. This multicenter retrospective study aimed to assemble a large cohort of patients with HES secondary to a myeloid neoplasm to explore the utility of clinical and laboratory features in predicting the underlying molecular abnormality. Methods. Retrospective, de-identified data from 16 centers were collected via an online Research Electronic Data Capture repository. Patients and associated data were obtained from in-house research databases and/or electronic medical record searches at each site. Clinical and laboratory data were entered in accordance with local Institutional Review Boards. Inclusion criteria were peripheral blood hypereosinophilia (AEC >1.5 x 10 9/L) on at least two occasions and one of the following: ≥1 confirmed genetic abnormality recurrently associated with primary myeloid neoplasms, other evidence of clonal eosinophilia, or increased blasts (≥2% in the blood or >5% but <20% in the marrow). Patients with acute myeloid leukemia were excluded. Results. A total of 277 patients followed between 1990 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Median length of follow up was 31 months (range <1-356), and 217/277 (78%) were alive at last follow up. The most common genetic abnormality was FIP1L1::PDGFRA (n=131) followed by D816V KIT mutations (n=39) and alterations involving JAK2 (n=22) (Figure 1). Five patients had genetic abnormalities involving two distinct genes recurrently associated with eosinophilic myeloid neoplasms. The overall median age at diagnosis was 55 years (range 12-89) and 79% of the patients were male. When patients with abnormalities involving PDGFRA and PDGFRB were excluded from the analysis, the male predominance was significantly lower at 62% (p<0.001, Fisher's exact test as compared to the data set as a whole). The overall pattern of organ system involvement was similar irrespective of the underlying genetic abnormality with a few notable exceptions. Cardiac involvement was most common in patients with FIP1L1:: PDGFRA, abnormalities involving JAK2 or without pathologic alterations identified (reported in 22%, 32% and 30%, respectively); whereas skin and gastrointestinal involvement, lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly were most frequent in patients with KIT D816V. Laboratory abnormalities also differed between groups. Whereas anemia was the most common blood abnormality (reported in >50% of patients), erythrocytosis was noted primarily in patients with abnormalities involving JAK2. In contrast, circulating blasts were identified in 70% of patient with BCR::ABL1 and 29% of patients with chromosomal abnormalities or KIT D816V, but in <15% of patients in any of the other groups. Whereas peak AEC alone did not discriminate between the different patient groups, the AEC/tryptase ratio was increased in patients with PDGFRA-associated myeloid neoplasms, molecular abnormalities involving JAK2, or chromosomal abnormalities as compared to those with KIT mutations (Figure 2). Conclusions. Despite the limitations of retrospective data analysis, the data from this large multicenter cohort of patients with HES due to a chronic myeloid neoplasm suggest that routine demographic, clinical and laboratory features vary depending on the underlying molecular abnormality. This approach could ultimately help guide empiric therapy when molecular studies are negative or unavailable.

In response to the social inequities that exist in health care, the NIH-funded Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR) recently formed a diversity committee to examine systemic racism and implicit bias in the care and research of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs). Herein, we describe our process, highlighting milestones and issues addressed since the committee’s inception, which we hope will inspire other researchers to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in their fields. Our journey began by establishing mission and vision statements to define the purpose of the committee. Regular discussion of diversity-related topics was incorporated into existing meetings and web-based materials were shared. This was followed by educational initiatives, including establishing a library of relevant publications and a speaker series to address DEIA topics. We then established a research agenda focused on the following actionable items: (1) to define what is known about the demographics of EGIDs by systematic review of population-based studies; (2) to develop a practical tool for reporting participant demographics to reduce bias in EGID literature; (3) to examine health disparities in the care of individuals with eosinophilic esophagitis who present to the emergency department with an esophageal food impaction; (4) to examine how access to a gastroenterologist affects the conclusions of published research examining the prevalence of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis; and (5) to develop a model for examining the dimensions of diversity, and provide a framework for CEGIR’s ongoing projects and data capture. In addition to promoting consciousness of DEIA, this initiative has fostered inclusivity among CEGIR members and will continue to inspire positive changes in EGID care and research.

Abstract 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.

AbstractBackgroundBiomarkers of eosinophilic disease activity, especially in the context of novel therapies that reduce blood eosinophil counts, are an unmet need. Absolute eosinophil count (AEC) does not accurately reflect tissue eosinophilia or eosinophil activation. Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare the reliability of plasma and urine eosinophil major basic protein 1, eosinophil cationic protein, eosinophil‐derived neurotoxin (EDN), and eosinophil peroxidase measurement and to evaluate the usefulness of eosinophil granule protein (EGP) measurement for the assessment of disease activity in patients with eosinophil‐associated diseases treated with mepolizumab, benralizumab, or dexpramipexole.MethodsEosinophil granule protein concentrations were measured in serum, plasma, and urine from healthy volunteers and patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), and eosinophilic asthma using a multiplex assay.ResultsUrine EGP concentrations remained stable, whereas serum and plasma EGP concentrations increased significantly with delayed processing. Plasma (p) EDN, but not urine (u) EDN, concentration correlated with AEC and negatively correlated with prednisone dose. Both pEDN and uEDN decreased significantly following treatment of HES patients with benralizumab and EGPA patients with mepolizumab. uEDN appeared to increase with clinical relapse in both patient groups.ConclusionsMeasurement of EGP in urine is noninvasive and unaffected by cellular lysis. Although plasma and urine EDN concentrations showed a similar pattern following benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment, the lack of correlation between AEC or prednisone dose and uEDN concentrations suggests that measurement of uEDN may provide a potential biomarker of disease activity in patients with HES and EGPA.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic gastritis (EG) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the stomach characterized by eosinophil-predominant gastric mucosal inflammation and gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate endoscopic features in a large series of children and adults with EG to better understand the endoscopic manifestations and develop a standardized instrument for investigations. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected as part of the Consortium for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, a national collaborative network. Endoscopic features were prospectively recorded using a system specifically developed for EG, the EG Endoscopic Reference System (EG-REFS). Correlations were made between EG-REFS and clinical and histologic features. RESULTS: Of 98 patients with EG, 65 underwent assessments using EG-REFS. The most common findings were erythema (72%), raised lesions (49%), erosions (46%), and granularity (35%); only 8% of patients with active histology (≥30 eosinophils/high-power field) exhibited no endoscopic findings. A strong correlation between EG-REFS scores and physician global assessment of endoscopy severity was demonstrated (Spearman r = 0.84, P < 0.0001). The overall score and specific components of EG-REFS were more common in the antrum than in the fundus or body. EG-REFS severity was significantly correlated with active histology, defined by a threshold of ≥30 eosinophils/high-power field ( P = 0.0002). DISCUSSION: Prospective application of EG-REFS identified gastric features with a strong correlation with physician global assessment of endoscopic activity in EG. Endoscopic features demonstrated greater severity in patients with active histology and a predilection for the gastric antrum. Further development of EG-REFS should improve its utility in clinical studies.

AbstractEosinophil-associated diseases (EADs) are rare, heterogeneous disorders characterized by the presence of eosinophils in tissues and/or peripheral blood resulting in immunopathology. The heterogeneity of tissue involvement, lack of sufficient animal models, technical challenges in working with eosinophils, and lack of standardized histopathologic approaches have hampered progress in basic research. Additionally, clinical trials and drug development for rare EADs are limited by the lack of primary and surrogate endpoints, biomarkers, and validated patient-reported outcomes. Researchers with expertise in eosinophil biology and eosinophil-related diseases reviewed the state of current eosinophil research, resources, progress, and unmet needs in the field since the 2012 meeting of the NIH Taskforce on the Research of Eosinophil-Associated Diseases (TREAD). RE-TREAD focused on gaps in basic science, translational, and clinical research on eosinophils and eosinophil-related pathogenesis. Improved recapitulation of human eosinophil biology and pathogenesis in murine models was felt to be of importance. Characterization of eosinophil phenotypes, the role of eosinophil subsets in tissues, identification of biomarkers of eosinophil activation and tissue load, and a better understanding of the role of eosinophils in human disease were prioritized. Finally, an unmet need for tools for use in clinical trials was emphasized. Histopathologic scoring, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, and appropriate coding were deemed of paramount importance for research collaborations, drug development, and approval by regulatory agencies. Further exploration of the eosinophil genome, epigenome, and proteome was also encouraged. Although progress has been made since 2012, unmet needs in eosinophil research remain a priority.Review on eosinophil biology and eosinophil-related disorders (2012–2017) with a focus on continued unmet needs in eosinophil-associated diseases.

AbstractSeveral lines of evidence suggest that deficiency of eosinophils is not associated with any characteristic abnormality. Patients lacking eosinophils, in the setting of immunodeficiency or as a consequence of IgG‐mediated eosinophil precursor destruction, do not display any distinguishing abnormalities related to eosinophil reduction. The observation that eosinophil‐deficient mice do not display any distinctive syndrome or failure of their health is evidence that, under ordinary laboratory conditions, the eosinophil does not play a critical role in the well‐being of mammals. Observations that monoclonal antibodies to interleukin‐5 (IL‐5) are well tolerated appear unsurprising in light of these findings. For example, patients with the hypereosinophilic syndrome have received mepolizumab, an anti‐IL‐5 monoclonal antibody, for as long as 6 years and have not developed any characteristic set of adverse events. Safety data for reslizumab, another anti‐IL‐5 monoclonal antibody, and benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody to the IL‐5 receptor α‐chain, are comparatively limited, especially for benralizumab, although reports of administration of these antibodies to humans suggest that they are well tolerated. Thus, data to the present suggest that reduction of eosinophils appears to have no characteristic ill effects on normal health, and monoclonal antibodies that deplete eosinophils have the potential to be widely employed in the treatment of eosinophil‐associated diseases.