|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Monday, February 23, 2004The team trialled the test on 243 patients with infections of the lower respiratory tract, such as bronchitis and pneumonia1. Half of the patients received normal care - doctors used X-rays, laboratory tests and clinical symptoms to assess whether an infection was bacterial in nature. As a result, 83% were given antibiotics. In the other half of patients, blood samples were taken and examined for procalcitonin. The test took about an hour. About 43% had high procalcitonin levels and were prescribed antibiotics. Despite the very different treatments, both groups did equally well in terms of recovery - nearly all the patients got better. "The test halves antibiotic use, without altering the clinical outcome," says Müller. Independent tests were later done to verify whether the patients had bacterial infections or not. Samples of their mucus were cultured in the lab for several days to see if bacteria would grow. The results of this test, which is not always accurate, indicated that only about 20% of patients in both groups had bacterial infections. The test checks for procalcitonin, a precursor of a hormone that's involved in calcium regulation. The results of the test sound intriguing. It would be a great help to have a fast, objective way to determine whether or not to use antibiotics. However,other studies, have not been encouraging. Procalcitonin can be a good marker for overwhelming infection, such as sepsis, but it wasn't so good for distinguishing milder bacterial infections. (hat tip Michael Fumento.) posted by Sydney on 2/23/2004 11:50:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
