Israel Medical Association Journal

Idiopathic eosinophilic vasculitis is a newly recognized form of hypereosinophilic syndrome. While little is understood about the condition, criteria for its definition have been proposed. We aimed to determine whether three patients with eosinophilia and vasculitis could be retrospectively diagnosed with this condition. We performed a retrospective descriptive analysis on three cases with hypereosinophilia and vasculitis who were treated in Sheba Medical Center, Sourasky Medical Center, and Meir Medical Center in Israel between 2009 and 2021. A thorough review of all three cases was conducted. The findings were compared to the suggested criteria for idiopathic eosinophilic vasculitis.

All patients shared the symptoms of progressive limb ischemia, eosinophilic rash, and peripheral neuropathy that are consistent with vasculitis. No lower or upper respiratory abnormalities or the presence of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) autoantibodies associated with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis were detected. Primary monoclonal abnormalities, drug interactions, infections, allergy, and other secondary causes of hypereosinophilia were excluded. After a thorough review, we suggest that our three patients with previously unexplained hypereosinophilia and vasculitis fit the diagnosis of idiopathic eosinophilic vasculitis. These results highlight the existence of this novel condition and the importance of its recognition and consideration as part of the differential diagnosis in patients with marked eosinophilia and vasculitis. Further research for elucidating the mechanisms and treatment approach for this potentially severe condition is urgently needed.

Background: Severe asthma affects up to 20,000 citizens of Israel. Novel biological therapies, which individually have been proven to reduce asthma morbidity in clinical trials, have become available in recent years. Comparative data among different drugs are scarce.

Objectives: To describe and compare the clinical outcomes of biological therapies in severe asthma patients treated at Shamir Medical Center.

Methods: We conducted a cohort study based on a review of cases treated with monoclonal antibodies for severe asthma at our center. Data were extracted for demographics, eosinophil count, lung function (FEV1), exacerbation rate, and median dose of oral prednisone. Between-drug comparison was conducted by repeated measures ANOVA.

Results: The cohort included 62 patients receiving biological therapy. All biologic drugs were found to reduce exacerbation rate [F(1, 2) = 40.4, P < 0.0001] and prednisone use [F(1, 4) = 16, P < 0.001] significantly. ANOVA revealed no difference of efficacy endpoints between the different drugs. Eosinophil count was significantly reduced post-biologic treatment in the anti-interleukin-5 agents (P < 0.001) but not under treatment with omalizumab and dupilumab.

Conclusions: All of the biological therapies were effective for improving clinical outcomes. None of the agents was clearly superior to any other. These data emphasize the need for severe asthma patients to be seen by pulmonary medicine specialists and offered, where appropriate, biological therapies.

Hypereosinophilia is defined as the absolute eosinophilic count of above 1500 cells/µL in the peripheral blood on two separate tests taken during one month and/or the pathological confirmation of hypereosinophilia. There are many conditions that are associated with increased eosinophil counts including: parasitic infections, drug reactions, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, allergic reactions, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), primary immunodeficiencies (PID), eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID), familial hypereosinophilia, and neoplasms [1]. Molecular classification may be an adjuvant in the classification of hypereosinophilia [2]. Our patient presented with hypereosinophilia as part of a paraneoplastic syndrome.

Background: Eosinophilic fasciitis (EF) is a rare disease characterized by scleroderma-like skin, inflammation of deep muscle fascia, hypergammaglobulinemia, peripheral eosinophilia, and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

Objectives: To present our experience in diagnosis and treatment of seven biopsy-proven EF patients in a large tertiary medical center.

Methods: We screened all patients who were admitted to our tertiary medical center and diagnosed with EF by tissue biopsies from January 2000 to January 2016. We analyzed relevant patient files regarding diagnosis, treatment, and outcome parameters. A comprehensive framework was presented based on the results of our observations and the corresponding literature.

Results: We identified seven patients (six males; one child). Mean age at diagnosis was 37.4 years (range 10–67 years). Underlying autoimmune disorders were observed in three patients (42.8 %). Disease anatomical distribution was noted in lower and upper limbs (85.7% and 57.1%, respectively) as well as neck and shoulders (14.3% each). Three patients (42.8%) had a history of initial misdiagnosis. The mean time period from first clinical presentation to histopathological diagnosis was 150.3 days (range 16–602 days). Treatment included oral glucocorticoids (71.4%), pulse methylprednisolone (14.2%), and methotrexate (42.8%). Recovery from symptoms related to EF was observed in six patients.

Conclusions: Diagnosis of EF is primarily based on clinical and histopathological findings. As eradication of this disease can be expedited with early treatment, it is important to increase awareness in the medical community.

The DRESS syndrome (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms), also known as DIHS (drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome), presents clinically as an extensive mucocutaneous rash, accompanied by fever, lymphadenopathy, hepatitis, hematologic abnormalities with eosinophilia and atypical lymphocytes, and may involve other organs with eosinophilic infiltration, producing damage in several systems, especially kidney, heart, lungs, and pancreas. The pathogenesis is related to specific drugs (especially the aromatic anticonvulsants), altered immune response, sequential reactivation of herpes virus, and association with some HLA alleles. Glucocorticoids are the basis for the treatment of the syndrome, which may be given with intravenous immunoglobulin and, in selected cases, ganciclovir. This article reviews current concepts regarding the interaction of drugs, viruses and immune responses during this complex adverse-drug reaction.