The emerging roles of eosinophils: Implications for the targeted treatment of eosinophilic-associated inflammatory conditions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crimmu.2022.03.002Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Highlights

  • Recent evidence pointed out the existence of different eosinophil subtypes, i.e. tissue resident and inducible eosinophils, with different and apparently conflicting functions.

  • Biological therapies with different mechanisms can deplete completely tissues and circulating eosinophils or maintain a minimal proportion of eosinophils, particularly the tissue-resident ones, and this could therefore have a different impact on patients, especially when considering the administration of these therapies for prolonged time.

  • The identification of the predominant pathway underlying eosinophilic inflammation by surrogate biomarkers (circulating eosinophils, organ-specific eosinophils levels such as eosinophil count in sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, tissue biopsy; total circulating IgE levels, or the use of FeNO) should be sought in the single patient with an eosinophilic-associated inflammatory condition.

  • These considerations may help in choosing the best anti-eosinophilic treatment, considering the increasing therapeutic armamentarium effective in modulating eosinophilic inflammation through the inhibition of the interleukin-5 one (with mepolizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab) or the interleukin-4/13 one (with dupilumab and lebrikizumab)

Abstract

Eosinophils have multiple relevant biological functions, including the maintenance of homeostasis, host defense against infectious agents, innate immunity activities, immune regulation through Th1/Th2 balance, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumorigenic effects. Eosinophils also have a main role in tissue damage through eosinophil-derived cytotoxic mediators that are involved in eosinophilic inflammation, as documented in Th2-high asthma and other eosinophilic-associated inflammatory conditions.

Recent evidence shows that these multiple and apparently conflicting functions may be attributed to the existence of different eosinophil subtypes (i.e.: tissue resident and inducible eosinophils). Therapeutic intervention with biological agents that totally deplete tissues and circulating eosinophils or, vice versa, maintain a minimal proportion of eosinophils, particularly the tissue-resident ones, could therefore have a very different impact on patients, especially when considering the administration of these therapies for prolonged time. In addition, the characterization of the predominant pathway underlying eosinophilic inflammation by surrogate biomarkers (circulating eosinophils, organ-specific eosinophils levels such as eosinophil count in sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, tissue biopsy; total circulating IgE levels, or the use of FeNO) in the single patient with an eosinophilic-associated inflammatory condition could help in choosing the treatment.

These observations are crucial in light of the increasing therapeutic armamentarium effective in modulating eosinophilic inflammation through the inhibition in different, yet complementary ways of eosinophil pathways, such as the interleukin-5 one (with mepolizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab) or the interleukin-4/13 one (with dupilumab and lebrikizumab), in severe T2-high asthma as well as in other systemic eosinophilic associated diseases, such as eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and hypereosinophilic syndrome.

Keywords

Eosinophils
Homeostasis
Inflammation
Asthma
Type 2 phenotype
Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis
Hypereosinophilic syndrome
Mepolizumab
Benralizumab
Reslizumab
Dupilumab

Cited by (0)