Urinary biomarkers of kidney injury are an area of ongoing research in nephrology. For years, urinary eosinophils have been used as biomarkers for acute interstitial nephritis (AIN). The characteristics that would make eosinophiluria a useful biomarker for AIN include that (1) eosinophils are consistently present in the urine of patients with AIN (i.e., AIN is characterized by an eosinophilic interstitial infiltrate), (2) eosinophils are absent in the setting of another etiology of AKI (i.e., other renal and extrarenal diseases are not associated with eosinophiluria), and (3) a predetermined percentage of eosinophils is easily visualized in the urine when present (i.e., excellent stain performance).As early as 1967, urinary eosinophils were reported in rejection episodes after kidney transplantation, suggesting that they were associated with "kidney inflammation" (1). The earliest description of this test as a biomarker for AIN was by Galpin et al. (2) in 1978. Using the Wright stain, nine of nine cases of methicillin-associated AIN had urinary eosinophils. Six of nine cases had biopsy-proven AIN, with eosinophils within the renal interstitium and occasionally, tubular lumens; 0 of 43 patients with AKI from another diagnosis had eosinophiluria. These data implied that eosinophiluria was a sensitive and specific test for AIN. Linton et al. (3) subsequently described eosinophiluria in six of nine patients with drug-induced AIN. Eight patients had biopsy-proven AIN, with five patients having prominent interstitial eosinophils. Overall, these two small studies suggested that eosinophiluria might be a reasonably good biomarker for AIN.Additional work on this subject by Corwin et al. (4) examined the clinical correlates of eosinophiluria using the Wright stain in 65 patients. AIN was diagnosed in 9 of 65 patients, with eosinophiluria noted in 8 of 9 of these cases, replicating previous data. However, urinary eosinophils were also shown in 27 of 56 patients with diagnoses other than AIN ( Table 1), suggesting that the test was rather nonspecific. Corwin et al. (4) concluded that using a .5% eosinophil cutoff might identify a group with higher probability of having AIN. However, 6 of 56 non-AIN patients and only 4 of 9 AIN patients met this cutoff, which (not unexpectedly) improved specificity but reduced sensitivity. The lack of sensitivity of urinary eosinophils was further emphasized in a review paper based on data from 10 studies examining drug-induced AIN showing that eosinophiluria was present in only 59% (19/32) of biopsy-proven AIN cases (5).Because low sensitivity was the major concern, Nolan et al. (6) renewed interest in eosinophiluria as an AIN biomarker with a New England Journal of Medicine publication that hailed the Hansel stain as a better method to visualize urinary eosinophils. This stain was chosen based on its use in identifying eosinophils in nasal, bronchial, and ocular secretions of patients with allergy-related diseases; 92 patients with an active urine sediment were identified by the nephrolo...