Specific Versus Empirical Anthelminthic Treatment in Eosinophilia

There are a few guidelines recommend about management of eosinophilia worldwide, most of guielines recommend a thorough history-taking and physical examination. Subsequently, investigations are requested based on suspected causes. In cases where parasite infection is suspected, particularly in developing countries, stool microscopy and serology are recommended. However, limitations such as low sensitivity of stool microscopy, the inconvenience of collecting multiple stool samples, and the high cost and unavailability of serology may arise. Consequently, some physicians opt for empiric anthelminthic regimens in managing eosinophilic patients, even without stool tests or if stool test results are normal. If subsequent complete blood count (CBC) results show a recovery of absolute eosinophil count, it is assumed that eosinophilia was caused by a parasite infection. While some studies demonstrate the efficacy and simplicity of this approach, there is a risk of overestimating parasite infection in eosinophilic patients, potential adverse drug reactions from unnecessary anthelminthic treatment, and the possibility of drug resistance due to inappropriate dosing. To address this gap, no study has yet compared the efficacy between specific anthelminthic treatment based on test results and empirical anthelminthic treatment in eosinophilic patients. Therefore, the investigators are conducting this study.