Hypereosinophilic syndrome in Europe: Retrospective study of treatment patterns, clinical manifestations, and healthcare resource utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The burden of hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) in Europe is not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical manifestations, and healthcare resource utilization for patients with HES from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. METHODS: In this retrospective, noninterventional study, data for patients with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of HES were abstracted from medical chart reviews. Patients were aged 6 years or older at the time of HES diagnosis and had 1 or more years of follow-up from the index date (first clinic visit between January 2015 and December 2019). Data on treatment patterns, comorbidities, clinical manifestations, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization were collected from diagnosis or index date to end of follow-up. RESULTS: Data for 280 patients were abstracted from medical charts by 121 physicians treating HES, with multiple specialties. Most patients (55%) had idiopathic HES, and 24% had myeloid HES; the median number (interquartile range [IQR]) of diagnostic tests per patient was 10 (6-12). The most common comorbidities were asthma (45%) and anxiety or depression (36%). Most patients (89%) used oral corticosteroids; 64% used immunosuppressants or cytotoxic agents, and 44% used biologics. Patients had a median (IQR) of 3 clinical manifestations (1-5), most commonly constitutional (63%), lung (49%), and skin (48%). Twenty-three percent of patients experienced a flare, and 40% had a complete treatment response. Some patients (30%) were hospitalized with a median (IQR) stay of 9 days (5-15) for HES-related issues. CONCLUSION: Patients with HES across 5 European countries had a substantial disease burden despite extensive oral corticosteroids treatment, highlighting the need for additional targeted therapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".