Eosinophilia and eosinophil activation are recurrent features in various reactive states and certain hematologic malignancies. In patients with hypereosinophilia (HE), HE‐induced organ damage is often encountered and may lead to the diagnosis of a hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). A number of known mechanisms and etiologies contribute to the development of HE and HES. Based on these etiologies and the origin of eosinophils, HE and HES are divided into primary forms where eosinophils are clonal cells, reactive forms where an underlying reactive or neoplastic condition is detected and eosinophils are considered to be “non‐clonal” cells, and idiopathic HE and HES in which neither a clonal nor a reactive underlying pathology is detected. Since 2012, this classification and the related criteria have been widely accepted and regarded as standard. However, during the past few years, new developments in the field and an increasing number of markers and targets have created a need to update these criteria and the classification of HE and HES. To address this challenge, a Working Conference on eosinophil disorders was organized in 2021. In this conference, a panel of experts representing the relevant fields, including allergy, dermatology, hematology, immunology, laboratory medicine, and pathology, met and discussed new markers and concepts as well as refinements in definitions, criteria and classifications of HE and HES. The outcomes of this conference are presented in this article and should assist in the diagnosis and management of patients with HE and HES in daily practice and in the preparation and conduct of clinical trials.

Background Acute myeloid leukemia is a life-threatening disease associated with high mortality rates. A substantial number of patients require intensive care. This investigation analyzes risk factors predicting admission to the intensive care unit in patients with acute myeloid leukemia eligible for induction chemotherapy, the outcome of these patients, and prognostic factors predicting their survival. Design and Methods A total of 406 consecutive patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (15–89 years) were analyzed retrospectively. Markers recorded at the time of diagnosis included karyotype, fibrinogen, C-reactive protein, and Charlson comorbidity index. In patients requiring critical care, the value of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, the need for mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor support were recorded at the time of intensive care unit admission. The independent prognostic relevance of the parameters was tested by multivariate analysis. Results Sixty-two patients (15.3%) required intensive care, primarily due to respiratory failure (50.0%) or life-threatening bleeding (22.6%). Independent risk factors predicting intensive care unit admission were lower fibrinogen concentration, the presence of an infection, and comorbidity. The survival rate was 45%, with the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II being the only independent prognostic parameter (P0.05). Conclusions Ongoing infections, low fibrinogen and comorbidity are predictive for intensive care unit admission in acute myeloid leukemia. Although admission was a risk factor for survival, continuous complete remission and survival of patients alive at day 30 were similar in patients who were admitted or not admitted to an intensive care unit.

Background: The evaluation of comorbidity is of increasing importance in patients with hematologic disorders. Patients and methods: In the present study, the influence of comorbidity on survival and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) evolution was analyzed retrospectively in 419 patients with de novo myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) (observation period: 1985–2007). The median age was 71 years (range 24–91 years). Two different scoring systems, the hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) were applied. Results: The HCT-CI was found to be a significant prognostic factor for overall survival (OS, P < 0.05) as well as event-free survival (EFS, P < 0.05) in our patients, whereas the CCI was of prognostic significance for OS (P < 0.05), but not for EFS. For AML-free survival, neither the HCT-CI nor the CCI were of predictive value. A multivariate analysis including age, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, karyotype, number of cytopenias, French–American–British groups, and comorbidity was applied. Comorbidity was found to be an independent prognostic factor in patients with low- or int-1-risk MDS (P < 0.05) regarding OS and EFS. Conclusions: Together, our data show that comorbidity is an important risk factor for OS and EFS in patients with MDS.

Introduction: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is the main reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs). We report the first series of adult patients with ARF and HMs treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 14 patients with HMs (aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) n = 5; highly aggressive NHL, that is acute lymphoblastic leukemia or Burkitt lymphoma, n = 5; Hodgkin lymphoma, n = 2; acute myeloid leukemia, n = 1; multiple myeloma, n = 1) receiving ECMO support because of ARF (all data as medians and interquartile ranges; age, 32 years (22 to 51 years); simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II): 51 (42 to 65)). Etiology of ARF was pneumonia (n = 10), thoracic manifestation of NHL (n = 2), sepsis of nonpulmonary origin (n = 1), and transfusion-related acute lung injury (n = 1). Diagnosis of HM was established during ECMO in four patients, and five first received (immuno-) chemotherapy on ECMO. Results: Before ECMO, the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was 60 (53 to 65), (3.3 to 3.7). Three patients received venoarterial ECMO because of acute circulatory failure in addition to ARF; all other patients received venovenous ECMO. All patients needed vasopressors, and five needed hemofiltration. Thrombocytopenia occurred in all patients (lowest platelet count was 20 (11 to 21) G/L). Five major bleeding events were noted. ECMO duration was 8.5 (4 to 16) days. ICU and hospital survival was 50%. All survivors were alive at follow-up (36 (10 to 58) months); five patients were in complete remission, one in partial remission, and one had relapsed. Conclusions: ECMO therapy is feasible in selected patients with HMs and ARF and can be associated with long-term disease-free survival.