High Disease Burden and Oral Corticosteroid Use in Patients with Hypereosinophilic Syndrome and Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis: Country-Level Insights into Real-World Management in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To analyze variations in patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical manifestations, clinical outcomes (i.e., response, flares and flare-free survival in HES; remission, relapses and relapse-free survival in EGPA; and overall survival), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) across five European countries. Methods: In two parallel, retrospective, non-interventional, longitudinal chart review studies (GSK ID: 214661 [EGPA] and 214657 [HES]), physicians collected data of patients they treated in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK from January 2015 to December 2019, with follow-up until August 2021. Country-level results are presented for each study; HES and EGPA data were pooled in a post hoc exploratory analysis. Results: Per-country, 22–26 HES- and 38–45 EGPA-treating physicians collected data from 52–62 (total 280) patients with HES and 80–85 (total 407) with EGPA. Patient sex and age at diagnosis differed across countries. Pooled HES/EGPA data revealed high oral corticosteroid (OCS) use in all countries (94.9% of patients; median [IQR] duration 20.7 [9.0, 33.8] months); immunosuppressive treatments and biologics use varied between countries (43.7–61.5% and 25.6–59.8%, respectively). The most frequent clinical manifestations were constitutional (51.6–78.8%) and lung (43.5–55.8%) in HES, and lung (41.3–67.9) and ENT (43.8–61.2) in EGPA. Pooled HCRU data showed country-level variation; 70.7–91.2% of patients had disease-related outpatient visits and 36.1–52.6% had ER visits or hospitalizations. Conclusions: Results demonstrate substantial disease burden, including high HCRU and extensive OCS use among patients with HES and EGPA in five European countries. The findings highlight the need for improved treatment strategies such as optimizing use of biologics to mitigate the reliance on corticosteroids.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".