Abstract
嗜酸性粒细胞(Eos)在急性肝损伤中的作用备受关注,动物研究结果证实,Eos通过白细胞介素(IL)-4/趋化因子(C-C基序)配体24正反馈被募集至肝脏;通过IL-4/IL-13抑制γ干扰素生成减轻炎症;通过肝素结合性表皮生长因子样生长因子/表皮生长因子受体促进肝细胞增殖。临床研究结果提示,药物性肝损伤和药物超敏综合征常伴随Eos升高,无Eos升高预示不良预后;基于贝那利珠单克隆抗体清除Eos后肝衰竭逆转的病例,提出了Eos“条件转换”和“耗竭”假说,可能在疾病初期发挥保护作用,在疾病后期被过度激活,转向致病角色进而耗竭。
Keywords: 嗜酸性粒细胞, 药物性肝损伤, 药物超敏综合征
Abstract
The role of eosinophils (Eos) has attracted considerable attention in acute liver injury. Animal studies have validated that eosinophils recruited to the liver through the positive feedback loop of interleukin (IL)-4/chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 24 alleviate inflammation by inhibiting interferon-γ production via IL-4/IL-13 signaling and promotes hepatocyte proliferation through heparin-binding epidermal growth factor-like growth factor/epidermal growth factor receptor. Clinical study results suggest that drug-induced liver injury and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome often accompany elevated Eos levels, whereas the absence of Eos elevation predicts poor prognosis. The hypotheses of "conditional transition" and "exhaustion" have been proposed based on cases where liver failure reversed after the depletion of Eos with benralizumab monoclonal antibody, suggesting that Eos may exert a protective role in the early stages of disease but become overactivated in later stages, shifting to a pathogenic role and eventually leading to functional exhaustion.
Keywords: Eosinophils, Drug induced liver injury, Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms
急性肝损伤是一种涉及多种病因(草药和药物,病毒感染,自身免疫性疾病,缺血再灌注等)的临床疾病,若未及时干预,可迅速进展成急性肝衰竭(acute liver failure,ALF)。ALF患者肝脏合成、解毒、排泄和生物转化等功能发生严重障碍或失代偿,出现以凝血功能障碍和黄疸、肝性脑病、腹腔积液为主要表现的一组临床症候群,短期病死率高达60~80%[1-3]。目前除肝移植外,缺乏特效治疗手段。因此深入探索其免疫调节机制、寻找新的治疗靶点具有重要的临床意义。
嗜酸性粒细胞(eosinophils,Eos)起源于骨髓造血干细胞,在粒细胞-巨噬细胞集落刺激因子、白细胞介素(interleukin,IL)-5、IL-3等细胞因子的调控下分化成熟,随后释放入血,再迁移至全身各组织(如呼吸道、胃肠道、皮肤等)发挥生理功能[4-5]。传统观点认为,Eos在过敏性疾病、自身免疫性疾病与炎症性疾病以及寄生虫感染担任着经典角色,近年证据表明,Eos在消退炎症、促进组织重塑过程中也发挥着关键作用[6-8]。
动物研究结果证明,Eos缺陷型小鼠,肝细胞的修复过程会明显延迟,肝细胞再生会受阻[8]。另一方面,多项临床研究结果提示,药物性肝损伤(drug induced liver injury,DILI)和药物超敏综合征(drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms,DRESS)常伴随着Eos增加[9-11]。一项前瞻性队列研究结果提示,DILI确诊时总胆红素水平升高、Eos水平未升高,预示着 DILI-DRESS 患者发生重度肝损伤的风险增加[12]。因此,Eos的功能表现不能单一地归纳为“好”与“坏”,它在急性肝损伤时的角色,取决于疾病的阶段,内外环境等多种因素。
目前已有综述系统阐述了Eos在DILI、肝缺血再灌注损伤、自身免疫性肝病、丙型肝炎、肝细胞癌等疾病中的不同角色[13]。本文从动物实验的保护机制、临床病例与预后分析,以及假说整合三个层面,梳理Eos在急性肝损伤和ALF中的研究现状,提出假说,以期为后续研究提供参考。
一、. Eos在急性肝损伤中的保护作用
1. IL-33/趋化因子(C-C 基序)配体(C-C motif chemokine ligand,CCL)24正反馈促进Eos募集:为了探究Eos与急性肝损伤的关系,Xu等[6]设计了对乙酰氨基酚(acetaminophen, APAP)过量(药物性)、四氯化碳注射(化学性)和伴刀豆球蛋白A(ConA)注射(免疫介导性)3种急性肝损伤模型,结果显示,Eos都被募集至3种模型的小鼠肝脏,并且这种募集没有体现出性别差异,与Eos正常小鼠相比,Eos缺陷小鼠肝损伤更重,随后针对更具临床相关性的APAP模型,将骨髓源性的Eos回输至Eos缺陷型小鼠,发现与未回输Eos组相比,小鼠丙氨酸转氨酶等多种肝损伤指标均出现不同程度的改善。为了探究这一过程,通过消除实验组小鼠的IL-33,与未消除IL-33的对照组相比,肝Eos的募集显著减少,肝损伤加重,提示IL-33可能作为Eos募集的上游信号分子发挥作用;另一方面,研究IL-33的来源证实肝窦内皮细胞可以释放大量的IL-33,IL-33作为“警报素”,激活Eos分泌IL-4和IL-13,参与后续免疫调节过程[6]。
为明确是否有其他细胞和炎症因子参与这一过程,通过干预实验发现血小板、中性粒细胞的清除并不影响Eos的募集,而巨噬细胞的清除却使得Eos的募集明显受阻,提示巨噬细胞在此过程中发挥着至关重要的作用[14]。既往研究结果显示,CCL11的功能在于参与过敏反应、寄生虫感染和炎症过程,CCL24则主要招募Eos、嗜碱性粒细胞和部分T细胞,参与炎症反应和组织修复,也促进成纤维细胞活化[15-17]。为了明确CCL11和CCL24是否参与Eos募集,Xu等[14]发现CCL11敲除的小鼠肝Eos募集并未受阻,而CCL24敲除的小鼠肝Eos募集显著减少,提示CCL24在ALI相关Eos募集中不可或缺;为了验证巨噬细胞和CCL24的关系,敲除小鼠的巨噬细胞,小鼠CCL24下降,提示巨噬细胞直接参与CCL24的合成和分泌。为明确IL-4、IL-13是否在巨噬细胞产生CCL24过程中发挥核心作用,向条件培养基中分别加入抗IL-4中和抗体与抗IL-13中和抗体,结果提示中和IL-4可完全阻断巨噬细胞生成CCL24,而中和IL-13无明显作用,进一步验证了IL-4参与了巨噬细胞生成和分泌CCL24的过程。基于上述研究成果,IL-33激活Eos后,促使其分泌IL-4,IL-4作用于肝脏巨噬细胞,刺激巨噬细胞产生CCL24,招募更多的Eos参与免疫调节形成正反馈环路[14]。这一机制解释了为何急性肝损伤后Eos能够在短时间内大量聚集于肝脏。
2. Eos减轻炎症反应的分子机制:γ干扰素(interferon-γ,IFN-γ)作为促炎细胞因子,能够激活巨噬细胞,增强其吞噬和杀菌功能,同时上调抗原呈递分子的表达,帮助T细胞精准识别病原体[18-19]。Eos缺陷型小鼠,IFN-γ水平会上调,回输骨髓源性Eos,IFN-γ会恢复至野生水平;而回输特异性敲除IL-4/IL-13基因的Eos,IFN-γ水平无法恢复,进一步证实了Eos分泌的IL-4、IL-13可以抑制IFN-γ的产生,从而减轻炎症反应,中和IFN-γ可减轻Eos缺陷造成的肝损伤[6]。为了探究IL-33如何诱导Eos合成IL-4、IL-13,考虑环氧合酶(cyclooxygenase,COX)-1和COX-2途径的代谢产物可激活核因子κB(nuclear factor κB,NF-κB)信号通路,Xu等[6]通过COX-1和COX-2抑制剂干预实验,证实COX-1和COX-2确实参与了IL-33诱导的NF-κB的激活过程。进一步研究结果显示,IL-33通过激活p38丝裂原活化蛋白激酶(p38 MAPK),进而提升COX-1和COX-2活性,最终触发NF-κB介导的Eos生成和分泌IL-4、IL-13,从而达到抑制IFN-γ的产生、减轻肝脏损伤的效果。
3. Eos促进肝修复和再生:基于前述研究成果已知Eos可以减轻炎症反应,为了明确Eos是否也有肝脏修复和再生的功能,Yang等[8]建立肝脏缺血再灌注损伤小鼠模型,与野生型小鼠相比,Eos缺陷型小鼠术后仍残留大片肝坏死,而回输野生型骨髓源性Eos的小鼠肝脏组织学结构基本恢复正常,进一步发现Eos在肝损伤后持续存在于肝脏超过1周,Eos数值在第3天到达峰值水平,与肝细胞增殖同步,Eos缺陷会显著延迟缺血再灌注模型肝修复和再生进程,而回输Eos则可完全逆转这一现象,提示Eos分泌的IL-4是调控缺血再灌注损伤后肝脏修复与再生的关键分子。另一方面,在IL-13敲除小鼠中,肝再生未受到明显影响。深入研究结果证实了IL-4通过IL-4Rα 直接诱导巨噬细胞分泌肝素结合性表皮生长因子样生长因子(heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor,HB-EGF),激活表皮生长因子受体通路,直接促进肝细胞增殖。
综上所述,肝窦内皮细胞释放的IL-33通过p38/COX/NF-κB通路激活Eos分泌IL-4/IL-13,抑制IFN-γ生成,减轻炎症反应;IL-4一方面促进巨噬细胞分泌CCL24,进而募集更多Eos形成正反馈,另一方面通过IL-4受体α亚基诱导巨噬细胞分泌HB-EGF、激活表皮生长因子受体通路促进肝细胞增殖。Eos的保护作用以及可能机制已在动物实验中被证实,然而,这一保护作用是否也在临床中得到验证?为了探究Eos与临床急性肝损伤的关联,基于近年来发表的文献总结如下。
二、. Eos在急性肝损伤中的临床观察
1. DILI中Eos浸润的普遍性:DILI是急性肝损伤的常见病因,除了药物对肝细胞造成的直接损伤外,肝细胞死亡引发的免疫反应和肝脏炎症可进一步加剧DILI。多种药物(抗生素、中草药及解热镇痛药等)所致的DILI均可检测到Eos增多,代表性药物及其基本特征见表1[10,20-23]。
表1.
药物性肝损伤的代表性药物及其基本特征
2. DRESS伴Eos增多:DRESS是一种严重的、可致死的药物超敏反应,其诊断需符合严重皮肤不良反应注册研究(Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions, RegiSCAR)评分系统[24]。Eos增多是DRESS的核心诊断标准之一,常见诱因药物包括复方新诺明、甲氧苄啶、莫西沙星、唑尼沙胺、别嘌醇及来氟米特等,见表2[11,25-32]。
表2.
药物超敏综合征的代表性药物及其基本特征
| 药物类别 | 具体药物 | 病例数 | 有无Eos增多 | 预后 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 抗生素 | 甲氧苄啶[25] | 4 | 有 | 4例均好转 |
| 抗生素 | 复方新诺明[26] | 1 | 有 | 好转 |
| 抗癫痫药 | 拉莫三嗪[27] | 1 | 有 | 好转 |
| 抗癫痫药 | 唑尼沙胺[11,28] | 2 | 有 | 1例好转,1例因肝衰竭+淋巴瘤死亡 |
| 降尿酸药 | 别嘌醇[29-30] | 2 | 有 | 1例好转,1例因感染性休克死亡 |
| 免疫抑制剂 | 来氟米特[31] | 1 | 有 | 因多器官衰竭死亡 |
| 抗结核药物 | HRZE[32] | 2 | 有 | 因多器官衰竭死亡 |
注:Eos为嗜酸性粒细胞;HRZE为异烟肼+利福平+吡嗪酰胺+乙胺丁醇
3. 预后分析:Eos水平与DILI、DILI-DRESS严重度的关系,普通DILI和DILI-DRESS中或许常伴随Eos增多,预后不一。Björnsson等[33]在2007年指出,外周血Eos增多和肝组织Eos浸润在DILI好转患者中更为常见(37%比15.6%,P=0.000 1;48%比18.8%,P<0.000 1),提示Eos与DILI良好结局相关。Rahnama-Moghadam等[34]分析2 121例美国DILI数据资料,其中128例(6%)为DILI-DRESS,与单纯DILI相比,年龄更小(42.3岁比50.6岁)、潜伏期更短(32 d比47 d)、Eos增多发生率明显更高(P<0.001)、肝损伤更重(重症/致死:45%比21.5%)、总病死率(15.6%比6.3%)更高(均P<0.001)。Medina-Cáliz等[12]通过对比特征分析发现,DILI-DRESS中Eos增多85%(普通DILI仅18%),住院率更高(79%比50%),自身抗体阳性率更低(5.1%比21%),多因素分析提示总胆红素数值越高、确诊时无Eos升高预示病情越重、病死率越高。上述研究结果提示,Eos与急性肝损伤的预后并非完全一致,可能的解释是Eos在不同病程是动态变化的,早期升高充当保护性角色,晚期“耗竭”通常与不良预后相关。对16例DILI-DRESS的回顾性分析结果显示,Eos水平在肝脏中的存在并不恒定[35],这一现象进一步支持,DILI-DRESS的重症患者在疾病后期,可能存在Eos“耗竭”现象。
4. 基于Eos的DRESS相关治疗:IL-5又名Eos集落刺激因子1,主要由T细胞产生,是影响Eos生长、分化、募集、激活和存活的主要细胞因子,在Eos增高型疾病的病理生理过程中发挥关键作用[36]。基于此,抗IL-5/IL-5R单克隆抗体(单抗)则是靶向Eos,针对此类疾病的有效生物疗法。目前主要有瑞利珠单抗(拮抗IL-5)、美泊利珠单抗(拮抗IL-5)和贝那利珠单抗(拮抗IL-5R),已有大量文献支持抗IL-5/IL-5R单抗在支气管哮喘、嗜酸性肉芽肿性多血管炎、嗜酸性心肌炎等疾病中的应用[37-45]。Ross等[27]报告了拉莫三嗪诱发 DRESS所致ALF,贝那利珠单抗成功逆转肝衰竭,而免于肝移植的案例,这一案例显示Eos似乎不再是正向作用,但该证据来自个案报道,还需大规模的临床数据加以验证。
三、. 动物实验和临床证据的整合和假说
上述动物实验和临床观察结果并非对立,而是回答了不同层面的问题。动物试验结果提示,Eos具备保护肝脏的能力;临床研究结果证实,无Eos升高与不良预后相关,然而却无法说明Eos是损伤的原因,或是旁观者。Ross等[27]报道的贝那利珠单抗成功治疗激素无效DRESS患者的案例为此提供了方向。Eos的功能可能是动态变化的,在DRESS后期,Eos不再发挥保护性作用,因内环境的改变以及多种炎症因子的出现,Eos过度活化,转向致病作用。因此,Eos在急性肝损伤中的角色并非静止不变,受病程阶段、活化程度、损伤的病因、持续时间以及内外环境等多重因素影响,在疾病初期或者适度激活的条件下,Eos发挥正向保护,促肝修复的功能。然而一旦突破某一界限,Eos被持续或者过度激活,可能通过两大途径促进炎症:一是释放大量预存的细胞毒性颗粒蛋白造成组织损伤并放大免疫反应;二是通过脱颗粒、ETosis(形成Eos胞外诱捕网)及分泌细胞因子/趋化因子/脂质介质等方式招募和激活其他免疫细胞,从而维持和加重炎症反应,最终演变成恶化疾病的反向作用[46-50]。推测贝那利珠单抗此时清除的不是保护性Eos,而是病理性Eos。上述过程或许先后发生,Eos发生功能转换,继而因持续激活而耗竭。需要注意的是,该假说基于单一病例,仍需更多临床研究验证。目前存在以下关键认识缺口:(1)Eos在疾病不同阶段的动态变化规律尚不明确,目前仍需大规模的研究动态监测其变化规律;(2)若Eos在疾病后期被过度激活,有无生物学标志物加以验证;(3)Eos耗竭的确切机制不明。
四、. 临床转化
Eos回输在动物研究中已被证明可以改善肝损伤,口服干酪乳杆菌可显著减轻APAP引起的小鼠急性肝损伤,并阻止其向暴发性肝衰竭发展,但其应用于临床还需时间。IL-33激动剂,作为IL-33上游信号分子,作“警报素”的用量把控仍需探索。抗IL-5/IL-5R单抗,基于贝那利珠单抗的成功案例提示了此类药物的未来潜力,但仍需大规模的临床研究。
五、. 小结与展望
本文系统整合了近年来的研究证据,揭示了Eos在急性肝损伤和急性肝衰竭中的关键免疫调节作用。动物研究方面,Eos通过IL-33、CCL24正反馈通路被大量募集至肝脏,通过IL-4、IL-13抑制IFN-γ的产生减轻炎症反应,通过HB-EGF通路促进肝脏修复和再生。临床研究方面,普通DILI和DILI-DRESS常伴肝脏Eos升高,揭示了Eos与肝损伤的临床关联,而无Eos升高,预示着临床更差的结局,结合Eos从升高到正常的动态变化,提示Eos可能存在耗竭。且Eos的角色可能不是一成不变的,受控于疾病状态,内环境等多种因素的影响。因此,深入探讨其角色转换的开关,以及何时需要增强Eos功能、何时需要抑制Eos功能,有利于为后续基于Eos精准治疗急性肝损伤提供策略,但未来还需大规模的前瞻性队列研究加以验证。
利益冲突
所有作者声明不存在利益冲突
引用本文:
朱梦莹, 傅熙玲, 常家宝. 嗜酸性粒细胞在急性肝损伤中的作用研究进展[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2026, 34(9):917-921. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20260519-00194.
参考文献
- 1.Lee WM, Squires RH, Nyberg SL, et al. Acute liver failure: summary of a workshop[J]. Hepatology, 2008, 47(4):1401-1415. DOI: 10.1002/hep.22177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.McDowell Torres D, Stevens RD, Gurakar A. Acute liver failure: a management challenge for the practicing gastroenterologist[J]. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y), 2010, 6(7):444-450. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.任艳, 孔明, 徐曼曼, et al. 急性肝衰竭定义的国际差异与挑战[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2026, 34(4):371-375. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20250903-00364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wechsler ME, Munitz A, Ackerman SJ, et al. Eosinophils in health and disease: a state-of-the-art review[J]. Mayo Clin Proc, 2021, 96(10):2694-2707. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.04.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Klimek F, Bergmann C, Hagemann J, et al. Eosinophil granulocytes in chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases and CRSwNP: function, immunological basis, and clinical significance[J]. Allergol Select, 2024, 8:40-50. DOI: 10.5414/ALX02469E. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Xu L, Yang Y, Jiang J, et al. Eosinophils protect against acetaminophen-induced liver injury through cyclooxygenase-mediated IL-4/IL-13 production[J]. Hepatology, 2023, 77(2):456-465. DOI: 10.1002/hep.32609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ni HM, Lopez-Pascual A. Eosinophils: a novel therapeutic target to promote liver regeneration in acute liver injury?[J]. Gut, 2024, 73(9):1409-1411. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Yang Y, Xu L, Atkins C, et al. Novel IL-4/HB-EGF-dependent crosstalk between eosinophils and macrophages controls liver regeneration after ischaemia and reperfusion injury[J]. Gut, 2024, 73(9):1543-1553. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mahapatra S, Duggal S, Botros M, et al. Across the border: a metamizole drug-induced liver injury[J]. Cureus, 2025, 17(3):e81010. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.81010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Philips CA, Valsan A, Theruvath AH, et al. Ashwagandha-induced liver injury-A case series from India and literature review[J]. Hepatol Commun, 2023, 7(10):e0270. DOI: 10.1097/HC9.0000000000000270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wen J, Du K, Shi D, et al. Case Report: Zonisamide-induced DRESS syndrome with progression toward SJS: the first Chinese case and review of the literature on ZNS-associated SCARs[J]. Front Med (Lausanne), 2025, 12:1708376. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1708376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Medina-Cáliz I, Sanabria-Cabrera J, Villanueva-Paz M, et al. Characterization of drug-induced liver injury associated with drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms in two prospective DILI registries[J]. Arch Toxicol, 2024, 98(1):303-325. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-023-03630-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.邢国静, 邓渊, 王丽菲, et al. 嗜酸性粒细胞在不同肝脏疾病中的作用[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2025, 41(7):1456-1460. DOI: 10.12449/JCH250735. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Xu L, Yang Y, Wen Y, et al. Hepatic recruitment of eosinophils and their protective function during acute liver injury[J]. J Hepatol, 2022, 77(2):344-3352. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.02.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ogulur I, Mitamura Y, Yazici D, et al. Type 2 immunity in allergic diseases[J]. Cell Mol Immunol, 2025, 22(3):211-242. DOI: 10.1038/s41423-025-01261-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Greenman R, Weston CJ. CCL24 and fibrosis: a narrative review of existing evidence and mechanisms[J]. Cells, 2025, 14(2):105. DOI: 10.3390/cells14020105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Zhao X, Zhou B, Cai J, et al. Decoding the roles of CCL11 in human malignancies and clinical implications[J]. Biochem Pharmacol, 2025, 242(Pt 1):117255. DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2025.117255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gauthier T, Chen W. IFN-γ and TGF-β, crucial players in immune responses: a tribute to howard young[J]. J Interferon Cytokine Res, 2022, 42(12):643-654. DOI: 10.1089/jir.2022.0132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Henderson J, O'Reilly S. The metabolic drivers of IFN-γ release: glycolysis and acetyl CoA ride in the front seat[J]. J Immunol, 2025, 214(6):1105-1112. DOI: 10.1093/jimmun/vkaf045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Faragalla K, Lau H, Wang HL, et al. Cloxacillin-induced acute vanishing bile duct syndrome: a case study and literature review[J]. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2022, 88(10):4633-4638. DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Halegoua-DeMarzio D, Navarro V, Ahmad J, et al. Liver injury associated with turmeric-A growing problem: ten cases from the drug-induced liver injury network [DILIN][J]. Am J Med, 2023, 136(2):200-206. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.09.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Kulkarni AV, Hanchanale P, Prakash V, et al. Tinospora cordifolia (Giloy)-induced liver injury during the COVID-19 pandemic-Multicenter nationwide study from India[J]. Hepatol Commun, 2022, 6(6):1289-1300. DOI: 10.1002/hep4.1904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Weber S, Benesic A, Neumann J, et al. Liver injury associated with metamizole exposure: features of an underestimated adverse event[J]. Drug Saf, 2021, 44(6):669-680. DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01049-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Schunkert EM, Divito SJ. Updates and insights in the diagnosis and management of DRESS syndrome[J]. Curr Dermatol Rep, 2021, 10(4):192-204. DOI: 10.1007/s13671-021-00348-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Connolly A, Walsh S, Philippidou M, et al. Acute hepatic failure in trimethoprim-induced drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS)[J]. Br J Dermatol, 2023, 189(1):140-141. DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hindosh N, Kotala R, Nguyen K, et al. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-Induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) complicated by acute liver failure[J]. Cureus, 2022, 14(10):e30852. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ross KR, Horesh E, Fang MM, et al. Benralizumab in corticosteroid-Refractory drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms: a case report[J]. Cureus, 2025, 17(6):e86932. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.86932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Sadjadi R, Cogdell E, Mostafa ME, et al. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms and severe drug-induced liver injury after off-label zonisamide use for weight loss[J]. ACG Case Rep J, 2025, 12(6):e01715. DOI: 10.14309/crj.0000000000001715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Koller E, Dixit N, Lee R, et al. A case of allopurinol-induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms in a patient with polycystic kidney disease and chronic kidney disease[J]. WMJ, 2025, 124(2):169-172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Abusuliman M, Amreia M, Rehman S, et al. Fatal itching and failing liver: a case report and literature review of rare, atypical DRESS (drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome[J]. Cureus, 2024, 16(3):e55355. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.55355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Caliskan AR, Erdogan MA. Leflunomide induced fatal dress syndrome need liver transplantation[J]. Hepatol Forum, 2024, 5(4):204-206. DOI: 10.14744/hf.2024.2024.0010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Panda BK, Suryawanshi VR, Raut A, et al. Antitubercular therapy causing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms manifesting multi-organ dysfunction syndrome and death in an elderly patient: a case report with review of literature[J]. Int J Mycobacteriol, 2023, 12(3):360-363. DOI: 10.4103/ijmy.ijmy_8_23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Björnsson E, Kalaitzakis E, Olsson R. The impact of eosinophilia and hepatic necrosis on prognosis in patients with drug-induced liver injury[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2007, 25(12):1411-1421. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03330.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Rahnama-Moghadam S, Arora N, Vuppalanchi R, et al. DRESS syndrome in patients with drug-induced liver injury: characteristics and HLA risk factors[J/OL]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2025, 120(2025-07-12)[2026-05-19]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40504263/. DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003590. [published online ahead of print]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ichai P, Laurent-Bellue A, Saliba F, et al. Acute liver failure/injury related to drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms: outcomes and prognostic factors[J]. Transplantation, 2017, 101(8):1830-1837. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Pant H, Hercus TR, Tumes DJ, et al. Translating the biology of β common receptor-engaging cytokines into clinical medicine[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2023, 151(2):324-344. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.09.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Rubin L, Talmon A, Ribak Y, et al. Novel targeted inhibition of the IL-5 axis for drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome[J]. Front Immunol, 2023, 14:1134178. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1134178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Chen G, Wang C, Han Y, et al. Individualized precision therapy for severe asthma: clinical applications of biological agents and frontiers of cell therapy[J]. Front Immunol, 2026, 17:1775111. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1775111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Iurlo A, Cattaneo D. Biologic therapies for hypereosinophilic disorders: from tyrosine kinase inhibitors to monoclonal antibodies. Towards an increasingly customized management?[J]. Blood Rev, 2023, 58:101014. DOI: 10.1016/j.blre.2022.101014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Jackson DJ, Wechsler ME, Brusselle G, et al. Targeting the IL-5 pathway in eosinophilic asthma: a comparison of anti-IL-5 versus anti-IL-5 receptor agents[J]. Allergy, 2024, 79(11):2943-2952. DOI: 10.1111/all.16346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Codirenzi M, Davanzo F, Iorio L, et al. Comparative real-world effectiveness and safety of benralizumab and two mepolizumab dosing regimens in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: a 24-month prospective single-center cohort study[J]. Frontiers in Immunology, 2026, 17:1844354. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1844354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Rúa-Figueroa Í, Velasco B, Cid MC. Mepolizumab for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA): a scoping review of effectiveness and safety data derived from real-world evidence[J]. Autoimmun Rev, 2026, 25(8):104080. DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2026.104080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Bakakos A, Rovina N, Bakakos P. Treatment challenges in severe eosinophilic asthma: differential response to anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5R therapy[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2021, 22(8):3969. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22083969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Lazzeroni M, Longoni V, Schiavo P, et al. Anti-IL5/IL-5 receptor therapies for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: an updated systematic review[J]. Front Immunol, 2025, 16:1587158. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1587158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Takahashi H, Awaya T, Nagamatsu H, et al. Eosinophilic myocarditis treated with IL-5 blockade: an integrated case report and literature review[J]. J Clin Med, 2025, 14(19):6829. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14196829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Fettrelet T, Gigon L, Karaulov A, et al. The enigma of eosinophil degranulation[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2021, 22(13):7091. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22137091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Eskinder H, Zhang Y. Eosinophils and the head and neck[J]. Head Neck Pathol, 2025, 19(1):24. DOI: 10.1007/s12105-025-01765-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Weller PF. The immunobiology of eosinophils[J]. N Engl J Med, 1991, 324(16):1110-1118. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199104183241607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Almas S, Lacy P. Mechanisms of eosinophil degranulation[J]. Cells, 2026, 15(13):1211. DOI: 10.3390/cells15131211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Lu Y, Huang Y, Li J, et al. Eosinophil extracellular traps drive asthma progression through neuro-immune signals[J]. Nat Cell Biol, 2021, 23(10):1060-1072. DOI: 10.1038/s41556-021-00762-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
