ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice2026
The Clinical Burden of Hypereosinophilic Syndrome in a Large United States Cohort.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited real-world analyses of patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) in the United States.
objectiveTo describe and compare treatment patterns and disease burden between patients with diagnosed or predicted HES and those without HES with elevated blood eosinophil count (BEC).
methodsOpen claims data were used to identify patients with 2 or more BECs greater than 1000 cells/μL, who were classified into 3 cohorts: patients with an HES diagnosis code (group 1), patients identified as having HES by a claims-based prediction model (group 2), and patients without HES with elevated BEC (group 3). HES-related treatments, disease manifestations, HES flares, and all-cause health care resource utilization were evaluated during the 12 months following a randomly selected elevated BEC. Group 3 was compared with groups 2 and 1, separately, using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and χ
resultsThe study included 212 patients in group 1, 8089 in group 2, and 132,945 in group 3. Approximately 62.3% of group 1 patients received 1 or more HES-related treatment, with corticosteroids being the most common (59.0%). The most common disease manifestations were those related to the upper airway/pulmonary (61.8%), constitutional (46.2%), dermatologic (35.8%), and gastrointestinal systems (34.4%). Among patients in group 1, 22.2%, 97.2%, and 25.9% had 1 or more inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department visit, respectively. Compared with group 3, groups 1 and 2 had more corticosteroid use and health care resource utilization (all P < .05).
conclusionsPatients with HES had a substantial clinical and health care resource utilization burden versus those without HES with elevated BEC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.