The significance of urinary eosinophils
- Abhijit V Kshirsagar, MD, MPH
Abhijit V Kshirsagar, MD, MPH
- Associate Professor of Medicine
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) is clinically suspected when a patient presents with acute renal failure, exposure to an offending drug, and sterile pyuria. (See "Clinical manifestations and diagnosis of acute interstitial nephritis".)
Activation of eosinophils and other mononuclear white cells plays a significant role in the pathophysiology of AIN [1-3], and case series describe the presence of eosinophils in the renal interstitium on histological examination along with macrophages, lymphocytes, and plasma cells [4,5]. The demonstration of urinary eosinophils has been proposed as a noninvasive test to aide in the diagnosis of AIN.
Eosinophils can be detected in the urine by applying stains that attach to their cytoplasmic granules. The three most commonly used stains are the Wright's, Giemsa, and Hansel's stains, and the last is the most effective at staining eosinophils in the urine [6,7]. The presence of more than 1 percent eosinophils of the total white cells in the urine is considered a positive test by any of these three stains.
However, the available data suggest that the presence of urinary eosinophils lacks the necessary test characteristics to definitively confirm or exclude a diagnosis of AIN.
Eosinophiluria can be found in a variety of conditions other than acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), including transplant rejection, pyelonephritis, prostatitis, cystitis, atheroembolic disease, and rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis [8-10]. As an example, eosinophiluria was demonstrated to be present in 4 percent of 148 consecutive hospitalized patients with pyuria (>5 white blood cells per high-power field), none of whom was clinically suspected to have AIN . Among 51 patients who were suspected to have AIN, eosinophiluria was present in 6 of 15 (40 percent) patients with a confirmed diagnosis of AIN and 10 of 36 (30 percent) with another renal diagnosis. Another report suggests that eosinophiluria is found in 90 percent of individuals with an ileal conduit .
- Joh K, Aizawa S, Yamaguchi Y, et al. Drug-induced hypersensitivity nephritis: lymphocyte stimulation testing and renal biopsy in 10 cases. Am J Nephrol 1990; 10:222.
- Shibasaki T, Ishimoto F, Sakai O, et al. Clinical characterization of drug-induced allergic nephritis. Am J Nephrol 1991; 11:174.
- Spanou Z, Keller M, Britschgi M, et al. Involvement of drug-specific T cells in acute drug-induced interstitial nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17:2919.
- Ooi BS, Jao W, First MR, et al. Acute interstitial nephritis. A clinical and pathologic study based on renal biopsies. Am J Med 1975; 59:614.
- Laberke HG, Bohle A. Acute interstitial nephritis: correlations between clinical and morphological findings. Clin Nephrol 1980; 14:263.
- Corwin HL, Korbet SM, Schwartz MM. Clinical correlates of eosinophiluria. Arch Intern Med 1985; 145:1097.
- Nolan CR 3rd, Anger MS, Kelleher SP. Eosinophiluria--a new method of detection and definition of the clinical spectrum. N Engl J Med 1986; 315:1516.
- Helgason S, Lindqvist B. Eosinophiluria. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1972; 6:257.
- Corwin HL, Haber MH. The clinical significance of eosinophiluria. Am J Clin Pathol 1987; 88:520.
- Wilson DM, Salazer TL, Farkouh ME. Eosinophiluria in atheroembolic renal disease. Am J Med 1991; 91:186.
- Ruffing KA, Hoppes P, Blend D, et al. Eosinophils in urine revisited. Clin Nephrol 1994; 41:163.
- Lieske JC, Bonebrake D, Thesing J, Bella G. Eosinophiluria is common among patients after ileal conduit surgery. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011; 49:1869.
- Rossert J. Drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Kidney Int 2001; 60:804.