Search

Introduction: Patients with eosinophilia (an increased number of eosinophilic granulocytes > 0.5 × 10⁸/l in the blood) are encountered in all medical specialties and frequently need thorough workup to identify the eliciting causes and decide whether treatment is indicated. In Denmark, highly specialised centres for eosinophilic diseases or conditions have been established to provide a foundation for the management of complicated cases. Here, we present experiences from such a multidisciplinary centre., Methods: This was a retrospective study of all patients seen in our tertiary centre for eosinophilia in the 2016-2019 period., Results: Referrals mainly derived from specialised secondary care and to a lesser degree from primary care physicians. Patients were either asymptomatic or exhibited symptoms from up to three organ systems and presented a median eosinophil count of 1.7 × 10⁸/l. Up to eight new clonality analyses or imaging studies per patient were performed after referral. One of these, T-cell receptor analysis, was performed frequently but provided limited information, whereas, e.g., flow cytometry proved more clinically applicable owing to its broader diagnostic range. In total, 51 patients were evaluated and classified as secondary (59%), myeloid neoplasm with PDGFRA rearrangement (2%), idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (31%) and idiopathic hypereosinophilia (8%)., Conclusion: The value of a multidisciplinary and versatile approach in a highly specialised centre has a positive impact on diagnostic processes as well as on the evaluation of treatment need., Funding: none., Trial Registration: not relevant., (Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.)

Introduction: In this retrospective, register-based population study, we evaluated if anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) is a better choice than immunoglobulin M rheumatoid factor (IgM RF) in primary care when rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is suspected, as it determines predictive values in real-life settings. Furthermore, the study described ordering patterns to investigate the benefit of repeated testing., Methods: Test result, requisitioning unit, test date and the patient's social security number were collected from the Department of Clinical Immunology at Odense University Hospital in 2007-2016 and merged with patient diagnoses from the Danish National Patient Registry., Results: Overall, 5% were diagnosed with RA. IgM RF remained the preferred test during the entire period. Test sensitivity was 61% for IgM RF and 54% for ACPA. The test specificity was 88% for IgM RF and 96% for ACPA. Positive predictive value (PPV) was higher for ACPA than for IgM RF (30% versus 12%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was equal (99%) in primary care. Few individuals seroconverted from negative to positive (ACPA 2% and IgM RF 5%) and positive to negative (ACPA 3% and IgM RF 6%)., Conclusions: ACPA has a higher PPV for RA than IgM RF, whereas their NPV is identical. ACPA is the better choice when testing for RA in primary care. Seroconversion is rare, and it is only rarely relevant to retest., Funding: The Department of Clinical immunology at Odense University Hospital funded the study., Trial Registration: not relevant., (Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.)