Quick Test Could Tell If a Patient Needs Antibiotics

Antibiotics work against bacterial infections but are often prescribed to people with viral infections, which don't respond to the drugs. But a new gene test could show if a patient's infection is viral or bacterial.

 

Getty Images/iStockphoto Thinkstock Images (MARS)

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When patients show up in a hospital with a respiratory illness, they’re usually given an antibiotic, which do not work against viral infections. Even though most of these respiratory infections are viral.
 

It’s estimated that in these cases antibiotics are incorrectly prescribed nearly three quarters of the time. And the overuse of antibiotics is a huge problem, helping to drive the development of strains of bacteria that are resistant to our antibiotics.
 

So scientists have been searching for a tool that would quickly allow doctors to diagnose whether a patient has a viral or bacterial infection—and thus know for sure whether to prescribe an antibiotic.
 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“The new approach that we take rests on the premise that any time we are exposed to something in our environment—whether it’s cigarette smoke, changes in our diet, an infection—our bodies react to that.”
 

Ephraim Tsalik of Duke University. He and colleagues investigated gene expression—which genes are activated and which remain dormant—in 273 emergency room patients. Some had a bacterial infection, some had a viral one, some had both and some had no communicable disease at all. The researchers also studied 44 healthy adults as a control.
 

“And what we found are some elements, certain genes, that are turned on and off in a certain way that is very characteristic of a response to a viral infection. Other genes that are turned on and off in such a way that is very characteristic of a bacterial infection. And then other genes that are turned on and off in a way that is indicative of no infection at all.”

They then tested these genetic activation signatures against publicly available data sets of patient infections. And the method was 87 percent accurate. The study is in the journal Science Translational Medicine. [Ephraim L. Tsalik et al, Host gene expression classifiers diagnose acute respiratory illness etiology]

Right now, such gene tests would take perhaps 10 hours to return a diagnosis. And so the researchers are working to develop a diagnostic tool that would cut that turnaround time to just one hour, so that doctors could quickly prescribe antibiotics. But only to patients who would get a benefit, because they have a bacterial and not a viral infection. Which ultimately benefits everyone.
 

“Decreasing the amount of antibiotics that are used in general is one of the strategies to try and improve the antibacterial-resistance problem.”
 

—Cynthia Graber
 

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Cynthia Graber is a print and radio journalist who covers science, technology, agriculture, and any other stories in the U.S. or abroad that catch her fancy. She's won a number of national awards for her radio documentaries, including the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award, and is the co-host of the food science podcast Gastropod. She was a Knight Science Journalism fellow at MIT.

More by Cynthia Graber

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe