International archives of allergy and immunology · 2021
Evaluation and Differential Diagnosis of Hypereosinophilia in Rheumatology Practice.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Üsküdar Cansu Döndü, Üsküdar Teke Hava, Yildirim Reşit, Dinler Mustafa, Korkmaz Cengiz
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There has been no investigation so far on the prevalence or causes of hypereosinophilia during rheumatic diseases.
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to identify the prevalence and causes of hypereosinophilia among the patients followed in a rheumatology department.
METHODS: The patients aged 18 years or over followed in our rheumatology department between January 2010 and December 2019 who had at least one AEC ≥1,500/µL measurement in their peripheral blood count were identified retrospectively.
RESULTS: Over the 10 years, a total of 130,769 peripheral blood counts were performed, of which 3.9% showed eosinophilia and 0.065% showed hypereosinophilia. Hypereosinophilia was identified in 85 patients. The underlying rheumatic disease was determined in 89.4% (n = 76) of patients. Of these, the most frequent one was rheumatoid arthritis at a ratio of 40.8%, followed by eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) at a ratio of 10.5%. Hypereosinophilia was in primary form in 3.5% of the patients, whereas secondary to another condition in 91.8% (n = 78) of the cases and idiopathic in 4.7% (n = 4) of patients. The most common cause of secondary hypereosinophilia was drug induced, as detected in 61.2%, followed by allergic conditions in 11.5% and EGPA in 9.4%. In 15.2% (n = 13) of the cases, hypereosinophilia was associated with an underlying rheumatic disease. In the cases with drug-induced hypereosinophilia, most often (in 28.8%) methotrexate was the offending agent.
CONCLUSIONS: Rheumatologists should be cognizant that hypereosinophilia concurrent to rheumatic diseases is usually not due to the underlying rheumatic disease, except for the conventional eosinophil-related rheumatic diseases.
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to identify the prevalence and causes of hypereosinophilia among the patients followed in a rheumatology department.
METHODS: The patients aged 18 years or over followed in our rheumatology department between January 2010 and December 2019 who had at least one AEC ≥1,500/µL measurement in their peripheral blood count were identified retrospectively.
RESULTS: Over the 10 years, a total of 130,769 peripheral blood counts were performed, of which 3.9% showed eosinophilia and 0.065% showed hypereosinophilia. Hypereosinophilia was identified in 85 patients. The underlying rheumatic disease was determined in 89.4% (n = 76) of patients. Of these, the most frequent one was rheumatoid arthritis at a ratio of 40.8%, followed by eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) at a ratio of 10.5%. Hypereosinophilia was in primary form in 3.5% of the patients, whereas secondary to another condition in 91.8% (n = 78) of the cases and idiopathic in 4.7% (n = 4) of patients. The most common cause of secondary hypereosinophilia was drug induced, as detected in 61.2%, followed by allergic conditions in 11.5% and EGPA in 9.4%. In 15.2% (n = 13) of the cases, hypereosinophilia was associated with an underlying rheumatic disease. In the cases with drug-induced hypereosinophilia, most often (in 28.8%) methotrexate was the offending agent.
CONCLUSIONS: Rheumatologists should be cognizant that hypereosinophilia concurrent to rheumatic diseases is usually not due to the underlying rheumatic disease, except for the conventional eosinophil-related rheumatic diseases.