New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe