Weller, Peter F.

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.

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.