Friday, September 20, 2013

How to differentiate between a viral or bacterial infection.

I know I had mentioned most of my blog posts from now on would regard tuberculosis topics. However, this new post caught my attention while researching. As the oldest of seven, I have always heard my mom complain about the doctor prognosis when she took her kids in due to high fevers or vomit. What was annoying to her was that every time she went, the doctors would say it was a virus. However, viral infections usually require a long series of blood work to determine if a pathogen is present. They could have never correctly diagnosed her with that after a few mouth, ear and eye examinations! Well, this article posted on the Science Daily website described the discovery of a Real-Time PCR method that can help establish a diagnosis of a viral infection versus a bacterial infection.

Since the method involves PRC it must indicate that there is some kind of genetic information being processed for this diagnosis, right?  Indeed, the differing immune system responses between a viral infection and a bacterial infection lies at the genetic level where certain genes are turned on during a viral attack and leave a fingerprint that can identify the pathogen to be blamed [1]. Because of this, this new method can be applied and in a trial run showed a high accuracy of differentiating between a viral and bacterial infection. Researchers controlled this experiment by analyzing the samples of individuals carrying specific infections. The scientists indicate that this method can work even when the pathogen guilty of infection is unknown, unlike in previous blood test work.

Even though the trial did not use an extensive amount of individuals, and the test is currently taking 12 hours to complete [1], it is a method we cannot take our sights off of. More trails and validation tests are still to be done so they can bring great benefit to the rapid and correct diagnosis of infections. This however, has me wondering if this method can be used to diagnose tuberculosis at a faster rate. Presently, a TB test usually takes about 2-3 days and sometimes even more tests are required for its diagnosis. A 12 hour window definitely beats that amount of days! And because a major problem in the resistance of TB treatment is the delay between suspecting you have it and confirming it [2], this could greatly help prescribe treatments that are more appropriate for any infection. Would you be willing to give this new method a try or continue taking the diagnosis doctors give you on a rapid examination?  


Reference:
[1] Duke Medicine (2013, September 18). Genomic test accurately sorts viral vs bacterial infections.ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 20, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130918143305.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmost_popular+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Most+Popular+News%29

3 comments:

  1. So, I think you make a really good point when you wonder if this can be used to more quickly diagnose TB. I don't have the answer, of course, but I wonder the same thing. The TB test you typically have to take in school isn't without its flaws. If you have a response to the test, it shows up as a positive result, but it doesn't mean you are exactly infected, but that you have at least been exposed to the bacteria. So I wonder if maybe this would be a more rapid, more accurate testing method for this disease as well as many others. Very interesting post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This post was fun to read and very informative.

    To answer your question, I would be willing to give this new method a try even if it does take a little longer than a quick Doctor's prognosis. I already don't like Doctor's offices as it is (especially the copay), and I hate having to constantly go back while they play the guessing game each time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have heard about this rapid test before and it is being currently used in most hospitals in the US to differentiate between viral and bacterial infections especially in children. Since there are a few symptoms that appear on the sick person, this makes the clinical differentiation very difficult. This test saves a lot of time and a lot of money. Viral infection do not need antibiotics to treat. Hence if we know beforehand that is a viral infection, we save money and we prevent the side effects of those pesky antibiotics.

    ReplyDelete