Clinical Characteristics of EGPA Patients in Comparison to GPA Subgroup with Increased Blood Eosinophilia from POLVAS Registry

Drynda, Anna; Padjas, Agnieszka; Wójcik, Krzysztof; Dziedzic, Radosław; Biedroń, Grzegorz; Wawrzycka-Adamczyk, Katarzyna; Włudarczyk, Anna; Wilańska, Joanna; Musiał, Jacek; Zdrojewski, Zbigniew; Czuszyńska, Zenobia; Masiak, Anna; Majdan, Maria; Jeleniewicz, Radosław; Augustyniak-Bartosik, Hanna; Jakuszko, Katarzyna; Krajewska, Magdalena; Dębska-Ślizień, Alicja; Storoniak, Hanna; Bułło-Piontecka, Barbara; Tłustochowicz, Witold; Kur-Zalewska, Joanna; Wisłowska, Małgorzata; Głuszko, Piotr; Madej, Marta; Jassem, Ewa; Damps-Konstańska, Iwona; Kucharz, Eugeniusz; Brzosko, Marek; Milchert, Marcin; Hawrot-Kawecka, Anna; Miłkowska-Dymanowska, Joanna; Górski, Paweł; Lewandowska-Polak, Anna; Makowska, Joanna; Zalewska, Joanna; Zaręba, Lech; Bazan-Socha, Stanisława

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/4283928

Journal of Immunology Research

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Ethical Approval Consent Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 4283928 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/4283928

Clinical Characteristics of EGPA Patients in Comparison to GPA Subgroup with Increased Blood Eosinophilia from POLVAS Registry

Anna Drynda,¹Agnieszka Padjas,²Krzysztof Wójcik,²Radosław Dziedzic,³Grzegorz Biedroń,²Katarzyna Wawrzycka-Adamczyk,²Anna Włudarczyk,²Joanna Wilańska,²Jacek Musiał,²Zbigniew Zdrojewski,⁴Zenobia Czuszyńska,⁴and Anna Masiak⁴ et al.

Academic Editor: Lalit Batra

Received11 Nov 2023

Revised26 Mar 2024

Accepted06 Apr 2024

Published25 Apr 2024

Abstract

Objective. To characterize the eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) population from the POLVAS registry depending on ANCA status and diagnosis onset, including their comparison with the granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) subset with elevated blood eosinophilia (min. 400/μl) (GPA HE) to develop a differentiating strategy. Methods. A retrospective analysis of the POLVAS registry. Results. The EGPA group comprised 111 patients. The ANCA-positive subset (n = 45 [40.54%]) did not differ from the ANCA-negative one in clinics. Nevertheless, cardiovascular manifestations were more common in ANCA-negative patients than in those with anti-myeloperoxidase (MPO) antibodies (46.97% vs. 26.92%, p = 0.045). Patients diagnosed before 2012 (n = 70 [63.06%]) were younger (median 41 vs. 49 years, ), had higher blood eosinophilia at diagnosis (median 4,946 vs. 3,200/μl, ), and more often ear/nose/throat (ENT) and cardiovascular involvement. GPA HE comprised 42 (13.00%) out of 323 GPA cases with reported blood eosinophil count. Both GPA subsets had a lower prevalence of respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurologic manifestations but more often renal and ocular involvement than EGPA. EGPA also had cutaneous and gastrointestinal signs more often than GPA with normal blood eosinophilia (GPA NE) but not GPA HE. The model differentiating EGPA from GPA HE, using ANCA status and clinical manifestations, had an AUC of 0.92, sensitivity of 96%, and specificity of 95%. Conclusion. Cardiovascular symptoms were more prevalent in the ANCA-negative subset than in the MPO-ANCA-positive one. Since EGPA and GPE HE share similarities in clinics, diagnostic misleading may result in an inappropriate therapeutic approach. Further studies are needed to optimize their differentiation and tailored therapy, including biologics.

1. Introduction

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), formerly Churg–Strauss syndrome, is a rare form of vasculitis affecting small to medium blood vessels. It is characterized by eosinophil rich, necrotizing granulomatosis inflammation, and a substantial increase in blood and tissue eosinophilia. Extravascular inflammation, both granulomatous and nongranulomatous, can involve various tissues, leading to diverse clinical manifestations [1].

Despite the fact that EGPA is classified as a subtype of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV), the ANCA-positive subset accounts for only 30%–40% of cases [2–4]. A perinuclear pattern of ANCA in IIF, associated predominantly with anti-myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA) antibodies, is observed in the majority of ANCA-positive EGPA cases [5].

In EGPA, two main clinical phenotypes are based on ANCA status [6]. However, some clinical features, such as adult-onset asthma, recurrent or chronic rhinosinusitis, nasal polyps, and, occasionally, life-threatening alveolar hemorrhage, may prevail in both subsets. On the other hand, certain manifestations are attributed to ANCA-negative EGPA, indicating the eosinophilic tissue infiltration, or the ANCA-positive EGPA, where the vasculitis plays a pivotal role. The former is characterized by cardiac involvement, encompassing cardiomyopathy with left ventricular dysfunction, valvular insufficiency, conduction defects, and pericardial effusion, parallel with gastrointestinal signs. Skin lesions associated with ANCA-positive EGPA manifest as either hemorrhagic, predominantly presenting as palpable purpura, or as dermal or subcutaneous nodules and papules. Other manifestations closely related to vasculitis comprise peripheral neuropathy and glomerulonephritis [6–9].

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) in 1990 proposed classification criteria for Churg–Strauss syndrome comprising six clinical features, including eosinophilia >10%, mono- or poly-neuropathy, nonfixed pulmonary infiltrates, paranasal sinus abnormality, and extravascular eosinophils [10]. At least four criteria must be met to classify the case as EGPA. However, the current nomenclature published in 2012 [1] and revised in 2017 [7] refers to the patients with asthma and hypereosinophilia (i.e., circulating eosinophilia ≥1,500/μl and/or ≥10% of white blood cells) who fulfill at least one of the definite features or surrogates of vasculitis, or ANCA presence with any systemic organ involvement. While the currently utilized approach is more sensitive [11], it is essential to note that vasculitis-affiliated centers now treat patients diagnosed before and after 2012. Therefore, comparing patients diagnosed in different timeframes may provide valuable insights.

Interestingly, hypereosinophilia was also documented in granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) [12]. Hence, for individuals diagnosed with small- or medium-vessel polyangiitis who also exhibit an elevated blood eosinophil count, it may be beneficial to consider the currently proposed classification criteria for vasculitis by the ACR and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). These criteria primarily rely on factors such as respiratory and kidney involvement, blood eosinophilia, and anti-proteinase 3 (PR3) antibody status to distinguish EGPA from other polyangiitis [13]. However, they were not developed for diagnostic purposes or validated in prospective clinical trials.

So far, the treatment of choice for remission induction in new onset or relapsing EGPA consists of systemic glucocorticosteroids (GCs) or the immunosuppressant–glucocorticoid combination, depending on the leading clinical manifestation [14]. Since those therapeutic approaches are associated with severe adverse effects and often do not meet expectations in terms of outcomes, biological treatments have been introduced, mainly rituximab and mepolizumab [15]. Other treatments, such as benralizumab, are currently under investigation in EGPA [15]. The emergence of new therapies can create a dilemma of choice, which could be addressed by stratifying patients to those who would benefit most [16]. However, further clinical and laboratory investigations, including pathogenetic disease characteristics, are needed.

Therefore, this study aimed to characterize the EGPA population from the POLVAS registry. This encompassed a comparative analysis of subsets with varying ANCA status to ascertain whether they exhibit distinct phenotypes. Furthermore, the study sought to investigate how patient characteristics and treatment approaches have evolved over time by considering the onset of diagnosis. Additionally, we conducted a comparative analysis between EGPA and GPA with elevated blood eosinophilia to look for potential similarities that may inform future diagnostic processes and treatment strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

The low prevalence of vasculitides makes data collection difficult; hence, in 2017, the Scientific Consortium of the Polish Vasculitis Registry (POLVAS) was created, including 10 academic centers for treating systemic vasculitides. It facilitates retrospective data collection on clinical features, treatments, and outcomes of Polish white Caucasian patients affected by those diseases [17, 18].

The registry encompasses 111 EGPA patients with clinical data sufficient to confirm the diagnosis, all of whom were diagnosed from 1998 to 2020 and stayed under the care of physicians from POLVAS-affiliated centers.

Although there are no diagnostic criteria for EGPA in the strict sense, the diagnosis in all patients was confirmed using the ACR 1990 classification criteria [10] and the nomenclature proposed by the 2012 Revised International Chapel Hill Consensus [1]. Since the latter was published in 2012 [1], patients in our analysis were divided into two subgroups: (1) diagnosed in 2012 and (2) diagnosed after 2012.

Due to the distinct characteristics of ANCA-positive and ANCA-negative subsets, patients were also divided according to ANCA status. We performed a separate comparison of MPO-ANCA-positive and ANCA-negative subtypes as well.

Additionally, 42 patients with GPA included in the POLVAS registry were characterized by blood eosinophilia at diagnosis ≥400/μl, classified as increased blood eosinophilia. Among them, 23 patients filled the criterion of hypereosinophilia defined as peripheral blood eosinophil count ≥1,500/μl or >10% of total white blood cells. The remaining 281 GPA patients with known blood eosinophilia at diagnosis were also included in the analysis as a separate subset.

Regarding microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), only 10 patients with increased blood eosinophilia were reported in the POLVAS registry.

2.2. The POLVAS Registry Construction

To enable reporting symptoms, each of them was classified into one of the broader categories. Details on symptoms category manifestations are provided in Supplementary Data S1.

All presented symptoms were treated as vasculitis related if no other explanations were found after a detailed and thorough diagnosis.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The normal distribution of continuous variables was verified by the Shapiro–Wilk test. All data were non-normally distributed; thus, they were presented as median and 0.25–0.75 interquartile range and compared by the Mann–Whitney U-test. Categorical variables were given as numbers and percentages and compared using the χ² test, with Yates correction, adjusted for age and gender if needed. Statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed p-value of <0.05. The algorithm developed to distinguish the patients with EGPA from the patients with GPA and elevated eosinophil blood count was based on the classification and regression tree (CART) method. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was employed to assess the performance of the obtained model. Calculations were made using StatSoft Statistica 13.3 (TIBCO Software, Palo Alto, USA) and R 4.3.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) software.

3. Results

3.1. Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (ANCA)-Positive Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (EGPA) Patients Were Older at Diagnosis but Had Similar Clinical Manifestations than ANCA-Negative Subset

A comparison of ANCA-positive and ANCA-negative subsets is presented in Table 1.

There were n = 45 ANCA-positive cases (40, 54%) who were older at diagnosis but did not differ in clinical manifestations, exacerbation rate, treatment mode, highest blood eosinophilia, and CRP levels (Table 1). As expected, the most prevalent in both subsets were respiratory symptoms documented in over 95% of cases (95.56% vs. 96.97%), followed by constitutional (88.89% vs. 89.39%) and ear/nose/throat (ENT) signs (84.44% vs. 81.82%).

Among treatment modalities, in the induction remission phase, in both subsets, the most common were oral GCs (93.33% vs. 92.42%), intravenous methylprednisolone pulses (60.00% vs. 71.21%), and cyclophosphamide (40.0% vs. 46.97%), while in maintenance treatment, oral GCs (71.11% vs. 56.06%), azathioprine (35.56% vs. 27.27%), and methotrexate (31.11% vs. 21.21%).

3.2. Cardiovascular Symptoms Were More Prevalent in Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (ANCA)-Negative Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (EGPA) Patients than in Those with Anti-Myeloperoxidase Antibodies (MPO-ANCA) Presence

An additional comparison of MPO-ANCA-positive and ANCA-negative subsets is depicted in Figure 1.

Interestingly, as shown in Figure 1, cardiovascular manifestation was 20% more prevalent in ANCA-negative patients than in MPO-ANCA-positive ones (46.97% vs. 26.92%, p = 0.045). On the other hand, renal involvement was 20% more common in the MPO-ANCA-positive subtype than in the ANCA-negative (44.00% vs. 22.72%, Figure 1), although the difference did not reach significance (p = 0.07). Likewise, gastrointestinal symptoms were slightly more prevalent but insignificant (p = 0.3) in ANCA-negative patients (Figure 1).

3.3. Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (EGPA) Patients Diagnosed According to the 1990 American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria Were Younger at Diagnosis, Had More Prevalent Ear/Nose/Throat and Cardiovascular Manifestations, Higher Blood Eosinophilia, and Increased Exacerbation Rate in Follow-Up

Detailed demographic and clinical characteristics of patients stratified according to the year of diagnosis; thus, different criteria are shown in Table 2.

Patients diagnosed according to 1990 ACR criteria were a median of 8 years younger at diagnosis than those diagnosed after 2012 (41.3 vs. 49.17 years, ) (Table 2). Furthermore, they were characterized by over 20% more prevalent ENT (91.43% vs. 68.29%, ) and cardiovascular (50.00% vs. 29.27%, p = 0.04) symptoms and had higher exacerbation rates and 1.5-fold higher maximal peripheral blood eosinophilia (4,946 vs. 3,200/μl, ).

Interestingly, GCs were the mainstay of treatment until 2012. On the contrary, later, immunosuppressant use increased in favor of GCs reduction.

According to the biologics and other immunosuppressive approaches, in our cohort, only one patient received benrolizumab and two intravenous immunoglobulins.

3.4. The Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (GPA) Subgroup with Increased Blood Eosinophilia (n = 42) Had Similar Age at Diagnosis and Prevalence of Cutaneous and Gastrointestinal Manifestations but More Common Renal and Ocular Involvement than Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (EGPA) Patients

Only 23 (7.12%) out of 323 GPA patients with a known blood eosinophil count in the POLVAS registry filled the criterion for hypereosinophilia, and an additional 19 cases (5.88%) had increased blood eosinophil count in the range of 400–1,500 cell/µl. All 42 were classified as GPA with increased blood eosinophilia (GPA HE). Detailed characteristics of EGPA patients in comparison to GPA HE and GPA with blood eosinophils count <400/µl (GPA NE) are presented in Table 3.

EGPA and GPA HE patients did not differ in age of diagnosis, but both those groups were younger than GPA NE ( and p = 0.03, respectively, Table 3). The percentage of females was also different, being over 15% and 31% lower in GPA NE and GPA HE than EGPA (p = 0.03 and , respectively).

GPA HE and GPA NE did not differ in clinics. In turn, the EGPA group had more common respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological manifestations but fewer renal and ocular signs than both GPA subsets. Furthermore, EGPA patients had more often cutaneous and gastrointestinal symptoms than GPA NE, but not GPA HE (Table 3)

The flare-up rate was higher in EGPA than in both GPA subsets; however, severe exacerbations, i.e., requiring hospitalization, were less prevalent in those patients (Table 3).

As expected, both GPA subgroups achieved higher doses of steroids and cyclophosphamide than EGPA in the remission induction phase and the maintenance therapy. Methotrexate, on the other hand, was more often prescribed in EGPA patients. Only in GPA rituximab and blood apheresis were applied.

EGPA and GPA groups also differed in terms of laboratory parameters.

Both GPA subsets were more commonly PR3-ANCA positive, although that type of antibody was also documented in about 10% of EGPA patients. On the other hand, MPO-ANCA was recorded in 23.42% of EGPA and 5.88% of GPA patients ().

The EGPA group was characterized by over sevenfold (4,992 vs. 700/μl, ) and 50-fold (4,992 vs. 100/μl, ) higher median blood eosinophilia at diagnosis than GPA HE and GPA NE, respectively. On the other hand, maximal C-reactive protein was higher in GPA patients (Table 3).

Comparing both GPA subsets, patients with GPA HE were 5.5 years younger at diagnosis (49.8 vs. 55.3 years, p = 0.03) but did not differ in clinics, with constitutional symptoms the most common, followed by renal and respiratory involvement (Table 3). Treatments used in both subsets were also the same, apart from the borderline significant, more prevalent use of oral glucocorticosteroids for the remission induction phase in GPA NE (54.76% vs. 71.53%, p = 0.04). The median CRP level at diagnosis was 34% higher in GPA HE than GPA NE (83 vs. 49 mg/l, ).

3.5. Clinical Manifestations and ANCA Specificity Distinguish EGPA from GPA with Increased Blood Eosinophilia

The classification tree model aiming to differentiate EGPA and GPA HE is depicted in Figure 2. All patients from respective subgroups were included in the analysis.

The final model was developed to maximize its prediction performance, resulting in a misclassification rate of 4%. Out of 42 GPA cases with increased blood eosinophilia, only two (4.76%) were assigned incorrectly, and out of 111 EGPA patients, only four (3.60%) were set incorrectly. ROC analysis was utilized to evaluate the model’s performance, as shown in Figure 3. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were determined to be 92%, 96%, and 95%, respectively. The model, which consists of 15 nodes, was based on ANCA status and four types of basic clinical manifestations (renal, cardiovascular, respiratory, and musculoskeletal) as predictors.

3.6. Blood Eosinophilia in MPA Patients

Out of 169 MPA patients in the POLVAS registry, only 10 (5.92%) had maximal blood eosinophilia ≥400/μl, with a median value of 570/μl. Only two (20%) cases filled the hypereosinophilia criterion, with counts of 1,284 and 1,280/μl. Six (60%) patients were female. Only one patient (10%) was PR3-ANCA positive; the remaining cases (n = 9, 90%) were MPO-ANCA positive. All patients had renal involvement (n = 11, 100%); constitutional (n = 8, 80%) and respiratory (n = 7, 70%) manifestations were also prevalent. Musculoskeletal (n = 3, 30%) and cutaneous (n = 2, 20%) symptoms were reported rarely.

4. Discussion

Given the rarity of EGPA, studies on large groups are scarce. The present study enrolled 111 EGPA white patients of the Polish population, accounting for 12.42% of AAV cases in the POLVAS registry.

As expected, other reports on large EGPA cohorts support our observations regarding most demographic and clinical characteristics [4, 7, 19–24], except for the gender ratio. In our EGPA group, females were more prevalent, which stays in line with reports published by Tsurkisawa et al. [19], Doubelt et al. [21], and Sokołowska et al. [9]. On the other hand, Comarmond et al. [4], Samson et al. [20], and Solans-Laqué et al. [23] reported higher or equal morbidity in males. This discrepancy might be related, e.g., to environmental or genetic factors.

The percentage of ANCA-positive cases in our dataset is also consistent with previous reports [2–4]. However, the approach to testing MPO-ANCA in negative indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) patients was not uniform among the POLVAS centers. In some cases, MPO-ANCA was tested regardless of the IIF result, while in others, it was tested only if IIF was positive. According to Tervaert et al. [25, 26], an IIF-negative result cannot rule out MPO-ANCA-positive status; therefore, the actual percentage of MPO-ANCA-positive patients may be higher.

Another issue influencing MPO-ANCA-positive EGPA percentage in this study is the unavailability of MPO-ANCA testing in some of the POLVAS centers in the past. No cases of confirmed MPO-ANCA-positive EGPA were reported between 2002 and 2007. On the other hand, since 2012, the incidence of ANCA-negative and MPO-ANCA-positive EGPA is nearly equal (data not shown).

In our study, EGPA patients did not differ regarding ANCA status in main clinical manifestations. On the other hand, comparison limited to the MPO-ANCA-positive vs. ANCA-negative subsets showed some differences, which is consistent with Moiseev et al. [27]. For instance, a higher prevalence of cardiovascular symptoms characterized the latter subset. Notably, differences in the prevalence of cardiac manifestations are the most consistently observed among large EGPA cohorts regarding ANCA status [6, 27]. However, it is important to note that cardiovascular involvement in the POLVAS cohort is likely underestimated due to the absence of routine extensive cardiac evaluation, including cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A previous study by Dennert et al. [28] has shown that MRI can detect heart changes in over 60% of EGPA cases. Additionally, in our registry, the ANCA-negative subset was characterized by a tendency toward a higher prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms, while in MPO-ANCA-positive patients, renal symptoms tended to be more prevalent. Although neither of these differences reached statistical significance, they were reported between ANCA-negative and ANCA-positive patients in some previous reports. For example, Healy et al. [8] demonstrated a higher prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in ANCA-negative EGPA, whereas renal involvement was more prevalent in ANCA-positive EGPA in studies by Comarmond et al. [4] and Sinico et al. [29].

Interestingly, in our data, ANCA-positive patients were older. It might be explained by the later age of vasculitic component onset [30, 31], since in AAVs, rises of ANCA may gain on relapse of clinical symptoms at least 6–12 months [32]. However, studies concerning the role of ANCA monitoring in AAVs were restricted to GPA and MPA patients, making it unclear whether the results can be extrapolated to EGPA [27]. Furthermore, monitoring ANCA in EGPA is useful only in those with MPO-ANCA-positive status at onset [27]. In addition, ANCA status alone is insufficient to determine the vasculitic phenotype of EGPA [27].

The next issue that merits comment on our data is the impact of the classification criteria of EGPA applied at the time of diagnosis. 1990 ACR classification criteria claim high specificity but much lower sensitivity [11], compared to the 2012 Revised International Chapel Hill Consensus nomenclature [1]. Indeed, when we stratified our patients according to applied criteria, those diagnosed after 2012 were characterized by less prevalent cardiovascular and ENT involvement and lower eosinophilia. Thus, the novel criteria likely allowed the diagnosis of milder disease, improving patients’ care and future prognosis. A shift in treatment approach toward minimizing GCs use in therapy was also visible in the study, together with an increase in the use of immunosuppressive treatments in the post-2012 subgroup, according to the new recommendations [33, 34].

Another interesting issue of this study is a comparison of EGPA and GPA patients divided according to blood eosinophilia. Due to the sharing of both eosinophilic and vasculitic components, an overlap of clinical pictures has already been considered in studies on GPA subsets [12]. For the purpose of the analysis, the threshold for an elevated blood eosinophil count was established at 400/µl, aligning with recent findings reported by Hartl et al. [35].

GPA subsets did not differ in clinics, but GPA NE had a lower prevalence of cutaneous and gastrointestinal manifestations than EGPA. While gastrointestinal symptoms are linked with the eosinophilic component of EGPA, cutaneous manifestations might be associated with vasculitis [6]. The difference in prevalence of gastrointestinal and cutaneous manifestations was previously shown by Iudici et al. [12]. Predominantly eosinophilic manifestations, such as respiratory or cardiovascular involvement [15, 36], were observed most commonly in EGPA patients. This study neither show a similarity between EGPA and GPA HE nor did it reveal differences between GPA HE and GPA NE in terms of neurological manifestations. In the report by Iudici et al. [12], symptoms from the central and peripheral nervous system were analyzed collectively as neurological manifestations, and no differences were observed between groups of different eosinophil counts as well. However, in the same study, peripheral and motor neuropathy analyzed separately were more prevalent in GPA with elevated blood eosinophils count than in the subset with normal eosinophil blood count.

Regarding treatments, the uniformity of GPA subsets suggests that increased eosinophilia was not influencing therapeutic approaches. Less intensive use of GCs and more common use of cyclophosphamide in the entire GPA group is not surprising and consistent with current guidelines [37].

Finally, it is worth noting that all subgroups profoundly differed in CRP levels at diagnosis, with the highest levels observed in GPA HE and the lowest in the EGPA. Interestingly, a similar pattern can be observed in the case of renal manifestations, even though the difference between subsets of GPA is on the border of significance (p = 0.05). As CRP is not only a nonspecific biomarker of inflammation but also contributes to forming complement C4 deposits, which play a pivotal role in developing renal manifestations [38], it can partially explain these findings.

An observation regarding the prevalence of ANCA statuses in this study is consistent with previous reports [6, 39, 40].

Since hypereosinophilia is a characteristic but not a pathognomonic feature of EGPA [41], distinguishing GPA or MPA with elevated eosinophilia from EGPA can be problematic. The main clinical features included in the 1990 ACR criteria for EGPA are hypereosinophilia, peripheral nervous system involvement, and ENT and respiratory symptoms [10]. On the other hand, the criteria introduced in 2012 are fulfilled if a patient with hypereosinophilia and asthma also has features of vasculitis or ANCA-positive status with any systemic organ involvement [1]. Therefore, both might be ineffective if applied to atypical cases of EGPA and GPA or MPA. In this study, nearly 10% of EGPA patients were PR3-ANCA positive, and 27% had renal manifestations. Furthermore, ENT and pulmonary manifestations characterized a substantial percentage of GPA patients. Therefore, the proposed algorithm effectively differentiating EGPA and GPA HE cases is a novel and interesting approach to that issue. However, its validation requires further investigation.

4.1. Study Limitations

Due to the retrospective, multicenter design, this study has certain limitations. First, methods used in obtaining laboratory data may vary from center to center. Second, data were collected from patients treated for many years; thus, establishing a precise definition of relapse, including vasculitic and respiratory ones, was unfeasible.

The broad categories used to classify patients in the POLVAS database make further in-depth analyses impossible. Some clinical categories encompass symptoms of significantly different pathomechanisms; for example, cutaneous manifestations include both purpura and skin nodules.

The POLVAS register did not collect data regarding exposure to environmental factors, infections, or drugs that might be a culprit of the disease. Finally, all patients included were white Caucasians, which is associated with the structure of the Polish population.

5. Conclusions

ANCA-positive and ANCA-negative EGPA patients did not differ in clinics, supporting their classification as a joint group. Nevertheless, cardiovascular symptoms were reported more often in ANCA-negative than MPO-ANCA-positive patients. Therefore, it seems that not the ANCA presence in general but MPO-ANCA status is critical for differentiating EGPA in terms of clinical and likely therapeutic strategy.

Moreover, since EGPA and GPA with elevated blood eosinophilia share some clinical traits, diagnostic confusion may lead to inappropriate therapy, e.g., some “eosinophilic” GPA patients may benefit from anti-IL-5 strategy, usually not recommended in AVV other than EGPA.

The proposed model distinguishing EGPA from GPA with elevated eosinophilia seems effective and may be helpful in clinics but must be validated in large AAV cohorts.

Finally, we have demonstrated that 2012 Revised Chapel Hill nomenclature may aid in identifying patients with less severe EGPA forms and, thus, likely benefit patients’ outcomes.

Data Availability

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Ethical Approval

The study protocol complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Jagiellonian University (No. 122.6120.25.2016). All POLVAS-affiliated centers acquired local ethics committee approval before recruitment.

Every patient provided written informed consent to participate in the study upon recruitment.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Research Grant of Jagiellonian University Medical College No. N41/DBS/001186 (to Agnieszka Padjas).

Supplementary Materials

The comprehensive list of symptoms reported in the POLVAS database was included in Supplementary Data S1. (Supplementary Materials)

References

J. C. Jennette, R. J. Falk, P. A. Bacon et al., “2012 revised international chapel hill consensus conference nomenclature of vasculitides,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Lyons, J. E. Peters, F. Alberici et al., “Genome-wide association study of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis reveals genomic loci stratified by ANCA status,” Nature Communications, vol. 10, Article ID 5120, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Sinico, L. Di Toma, U. Maggiore et al., “Prevalence and clinical significance of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in Churg-Strauss syndrome,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 2926–2935, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Comarmond, C. Pagnoux, M. Khellaf et al., “Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss): clinical characteristics and long-term followup of the 383 patients enrolled in the French Vasculitis Study Group cohort,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 270–281, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
K. A. Keogh and U. Specks, “Churg-Strauss syndrome: clinical presentation, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, and leukotriene receptor antagonists,” The American Journal of Medicine, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 284–290, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Emmi, A. Bettiol, E. Gelain et al., “Evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 378–393, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Cottin, E. Bel, P. Bottero et al., “Revisiting the systemic vasculitis in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss): a study of 157 patients by the Groupe d’Etudes et de Recherche sur les Maladies Orphelines Pulmonaires and the European Respiratory Society Taskforce on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss),” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Healy, S. Bibby, R. Steele, M. Weatherall, H. Nelson, and R. Beasley, “Antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies and myeloperoxidase autoantibodies in clinical expression of Churg-Strauss syndrome,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 571–576.e6, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Sokołowska, W. Szczeklik, A. Włudarczyk et al., “ANCA-positive and ANCA-negative phenotypes of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA): outcome and long-term follow-up of 50 patients from a single polish center,” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. S41–S47, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
A. T. Masi, G. G. Hunder, J. T. Lie et al., “The American college of rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Churg-Strauss syndrome (allergic granulomatosis and angiitis),” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1094–1100, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Seeliger, J. Sznajd, J. C. Robson et al., “Are the 1990 American college of rheumatology vasculitis classification criteria still valid?” Rheumatology, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1154–1161, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Iudici, X. Puéchal, C. Pagnoux et al., “Significance of eosinophilia in granulomatosis with polyangiitis: data from the French Vasculitis Study Group registry,” Rheumatology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1211–1216, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. C. Grayson, C. Ponte, R. Suppiah et al., “American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for rheumatology classification criteria for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 81, pp. 309–314, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Hellmich, B. Sanchez-Alamo, J. H. Schirmer et al., “EULAR recommendations for the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis: 2022 update,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 83, pp. 30–47, 2024.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. White and S. Dubey, “Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: a review,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 22, no. 1, Article ID 103219, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Berti, F. Atzeni, L. Dagna et al., “Targeting the interleukin-5 pathway in EGPA: evidence, uncertainties and opportunities,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 82, pp. 164–168, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Musiał and K. Wójcik, “Polish vasculitis registry: POLVAS,” Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 71-72, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Padjas, J. Sznajd, W. Szczeklik, K. Wójcik, K. Wawrzycka, and J. Musiał, “Rare disease registries: an initiative to establish vasculitis registry in Poland,” Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 143-144, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Tsurikisawa, C. Oshikata, A. Kinoshita, T. Tsuburai, and H. Saito, “Longterm prognosis of 121 patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis in Japan,” The Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1206–1215, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Samson, X. Puéchal, H. Devilliers et al., “Long-term outcomes of 118 patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg–Strauss syndrome) enrolled in two prospective trials,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 43, pp. 60–69, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Doubelt, D. Cuthbertson, S. Carette et al., “Clinical manifestations and long-term outcomes of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis in North America,” ACR Open Rheumatology, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 404–412, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-A. Durel, J. Berthiller, S. Caboni, D. Jayne, J. Ninet, and A. Hot, “Long-term followup of a multicenter cohort of 101 patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss),” Arthritis Care & Research, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 374–383, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Solans-Laqué, G. Fraile, M. Rodriguez-Carballeira et al., “Clinical characteristics and outcome of Spanish patients with ANCA-associated vasculitides impact of the vasculitis type, ANCA specificity, and treatment on mortality and morbidity,” Medicine, vol. 96, no. 8, Article ID 6083, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Moosig, J. P. Bremer, B. Hellmich et al., “A vasculitis centre based management strategy leads to improved outcome in eosinophilic granulomatosis and polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss, EGPA): monocentric experiences in 150 patients,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 1011–1017, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. C. Tervaert, P. C. Limburg, J. D. Elema et al., “Detection of autoantibodies against myeloid lysosomal enzymes: a useful adjunct to classification of patients with biopsy-proven necrotizing arteritis,” The American Journal of Medicine, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 59–66, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. C. Tervaert, R. Goldschmeding, J. D. Elema et al., “Association of autoantibodies to myeloperoxidase with different forms of vasculitis,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1264–1272, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Moiseev, X. Bossuyt, Y. Arimura et al., “International consensus on antineutrophil cytoplasm antibodies testing in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 202, no. 10, pp. 1360–1372, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Dennert, P. van Paassen, S. Schalla et al., “Cardiac involvement in Churg-Strauss syndrome,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 627–634, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Sinico, L. Di Toma, and A. Radice, “Renal involvement in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody associated vasculitis,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 477–482, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Wojcik, A. Masiak, R. Jeleniewicz et al., “Association of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) specificity with demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with ANCA-associated vasculitides,” Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 132, no. 3, pp. 1–7, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Trivioli, B. Terrier, and A. Vaglio, “Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: understanding the disease and its management,” Rheumatology, vol. 59, no. Supplement_3, pp. iii84–iii94, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Al-Soudi, Y. Vegting, P. L. Klarenbeek, and M. L. Hilhorst, “Do relapses follow ANCA rises? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the value of serial ANCA level evaluation,” Frontiers in Medicine, vol. 9, Article ID 844112, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Robson, H. Doll, R. Suppiah et al., “Glucocorticoid treatment and damage in the anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitides: long-term data from the European Vasculitis Study Group trials,” Rheumatology, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 471–481, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. E. Farrah, M. Prendecki, R. W. Hunter et al., “Glucocorticoid-free treatment of severe ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 739–742, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Hartl, M.-K. Breyer, O. C. Burghuber et al., “Blood eosinophil count in the general population: typical values and potential confounders,” European Respiratory Journal, vol. 55, no. 5, Article ID 1901874, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Akuthota and P. F. Weller, “Spectrum of eosinophilic end-organ manifestations,” Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 403–411, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Chung, C. A. Langford, M. Maz et al., “2021 American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation Guideline for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 1366–1383, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Korsten, E. Baier, S. Hakroush, and B. Tampe, “C-reactive protein levels are associated with complement C4 deposits and interstitial arteritis in ANCA-associated renal vasculitis,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 24, no. 4, Article ID 3072, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Pagnoux and L. Guillevin, “Churg-Strauss syndrome: evidence for disease subtypes?” Current Opinion in Rheumatology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 21–28, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Comarmond and P. Cacoub, “Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener): clinical aspects and treatment,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1121–1125, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Tamaki, S. Chatterjee, and C. A. Langford, “Eosinophilia in rheumatologic/vascular disorders,” Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 453–476, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Anna Drynda et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

134

Downloads

63

Citations