Division of Allergy and Immunology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill.
Department of Internal Medicine, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022 May;10(5):1217-1228.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.02.006. Epub 2022 Feb 15.
Treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) often requires the use of immunomodulators with substantial side effect profiles. The emergence of biologics offers an alternative treatment modality.
To examine real-world practice data to describe the safety and consequences of various biologics suspected to directly or indirectly affect eosinophilic inflammation for the treatment of HES.
Retrospective data from 13 centers were collected via an online Research Electronic Data Capture repository. Inclusion criteria included (1) peripheral eosinophil count of 1,500/mm or greater without a secondary cause; (2) clinical manifestations attributable to the eosinophilia; and (3) having received mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), benralizumab (afucosylated anti-IL-5 receptor α), omalizumab (anti-IgE), alemtuzumab (anti-CD52), dupilumab (anti-IL-4 receptor α), or reslizumab (anti-IL-5) outside a placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Of the 151 courses of biologics prescribed for 121 patients with HES, 59% resulted in improved HES symptoms and 77% enabled tapering of other HES medications. Overall, 105 patients were receiving daily systemic glucocorticoids at the time of a biologic initiation and were able to reduce the glucocorticoid dose by a median reduction of 10 mg of daily prednisone equivalents. Biologics were generally safe and well-tolerated other than infusion reactions with alemtuzumab. Thirteen of 24 patients had clinical improvement after switching biologics and nine patients responded to increasing the dose of mepolizumab after a lack of response to a lower dose.
Biologics may offer a safer treatment alternative to existing therapies for HES, although the optimal dosing and choice for each subtype of HES remain to be determined. Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and intersite differences in data collection and availability of each biologic.
治疗嗜酸性粒细胞增多综合征(HES)通常需要使用具有大量副作用的免疫调节剂。生物制剂的出现提供了一种替代治疗方法。
检查真实世界实践数据,以描述各种生物制剂的安全性和后果,这些生物制剂被怀疑直接或间接影响嗜酸性粒细胞炎症,用于治疗 HES。
通过在线研究电子数据捕获存储库收集了来自 13 个中心的回顾性数据。纳入标准包括(1)外周血嗜酸性粒细胞计数为 1500/mm³或更高,无继发性原因;(2)临床表现归因于嗜酸性粒细胞增多;(3)接受美泊利珠单抗(抗 IL-5)、贝那利珠单抗(去岩藻糖基化抗 IL-5 受体α)、奥马珠单抗(抗 IgE)、阿仑单抗(抗 CD52)、度普利尤单抗(抗 IL-4 受体α)或瑞利珠单抗(抗 IL-5)治疗,且不在安慰剂对照临床试验之外。
在为 121 例 HES 患者开出的 151 个疗程的生物制剂中,59%的患者 HES 症状得到改善,77%的患者能够减少其他 HES 药物的剂量。总体而言,在开始使用生物制剂时,有 105 例患者正在接受每日全身糖皮质激素治疗,并且能够将糖皮质激素剂量中位数减少 10mg 每日泼尼松当量。除阿仑单抗的输注反应外,生物制剂通常是安全且耐受良好的。在 24 例患者中有 13 例在更换生物制剂后临床症状得到改善,9 例在对较低剂量无反应后增加美泊利珠单抗剂量后有反应。
生物制剂可能为 HES 的现有治疗方法提供更安全的治疗选择,尽管每种 HES 亚型的最佳剂量和选择仍有待确定。本研究的局限性包括其回顾性性质以及数据收集和每种生物制剂可用性的站点间差异。