Lab results - looking for opinions [PLEASE READ 1ST POST]

redcrane22 said:levels: 30-ish 😁
tested because I was feeling terrible lately
bacteria: rare

no serious illnesses
not sure what helped

To cut to the chase.
I have no idea how a urine analysis relates to you feeling like garbage, but based on what's here, the results presumably look fine—though, again, the full report hasn't even been transcribed here.

My blood work looks fine
but my urine test results just confirm those bacteria were present, exactly like I thought they might be
my primary care physician thinks that might have been what was making me feel so off
and by "off," I mean I was dealing with some dizzy spells and feeling genuinely sick...

so she put me on some antibiotics to target those rare bacteria
but what does "rare" actually mean in this context?
which ones is she talking about?

redcrane22 said:my blood work looks fine,
but my urinalysis just shows those specific bacteria exactly like I said before
my primary care doctor thinks maybe that’s what made me feel so lousy
and by "lousy," I mean I was dizzy and actually felt sick...

so she put me on antibiotics for these "rare" bacteria
what does "rare" even mean?
which ones are we talking about here?

And then we’ll all act shocked and outraged when everyone starts talking about antibiotic resistance.🙂🙂🙄☕
It's truly disturbing and frankly terrifying, but unfortunately, this isn't some isolated incident—it's becoming the standard practice for most doctors.

vividsailor7 said:And then we’ll act shocked and outraged when everyone starts talking about antibiotic resistance.🙂🙂🙄☕
Truly concerning and frankly terrifying, but unfortunately, this isn't an outlier. It's becoming the standard practice.

signature 😉

I was prescribed antibiotics for an earache. Naturally, I didn't take them, and the pain just went away on its own.🙂

redcrane22 said:My bloodwork looks fine,
but my urinalysis just lists those bacteria exactly how I described it earlier.
My primary care doctor thinks maybe that’s what was making me feel so crummy.
And by "crummy," I mean I was feeling dizzy and actually felt sick...

So she put me on antibiotics for these "rare" bacteria.
What does "rare" even mean here?
Which ones are we talking about?

The microscopic exam showed a few bacteria present.
Only a urine culture can pinpoint the specific type of bacteria, but you only had a standard "urinalysis." That basic test isn't designed to identify the exact strain.

Usually, there's no need for antibiotics if we're just talking about "rare" bacteria.

redcrane22 said:My bloodwork looks fine,
but my urinalysis just mentions those bacteria exactly like I said.
My primary care doctor thinks maybe that’s why I felt so crappy.
And by "crappy," I mean I was dizzy and actually feeling sick...

So she put me on antibiotics for these "rare" bacteria.
What does "rare" even mean?
Which ones are we talking about?

I'll just stick with 🙄the doctor.

If they isolated a low count of bacteria, they should have sent you for a formal culture. You need to know exactly what strain you're dealing with, the concentration, and which specific antibiotic actually hits it—not just guessing with a prescription.

There's no point in re-testing right now. Finish the full course of antibiotics first. Then, two weeks after you've finished the meds, go back and get a urine test. If it isn't sterile, that's when you insist on a full analysis.

swiftbear86 said:They found a few bacteria on the microscopic exam.
Only a urine culture actually identifies the specific strain, but you just had a "standard urinalysis"! That test isn't going to tell you which bacterium is actually there.

There's no need for antibiotics for "rare bacteria."

Honestly, this drives me crazy. If she really thought she needed antibiotics, she should have gone for a targeted treatment instead of just having them scribble something down to get her off their back.

It bugs me how they prescribe antibiotics for nothing, especially when they're just guessing. And then everyone acts surprised when we see more and more MRSA, Staph, and other monsters becoming resistant to everything we throw at them.

Can someone help me make sense of these results?

BLOOD TYPE - A
RhD Type – POSITIVE (+)
Rh genotype – Ccee
K blood group NEGATIVE (-)
Coombs indirect – NEGATIVE (-)
KPB tests are non-reactive. Please perform a control and CT during weeks 28 and 35 of pregnancy.

Basically, I'm pregnant and didn't know my blood type until now. Am I A positive or A negative? That minus sign next to the K blood group is throwing me for a loop. Also, what does it actually mean when they say KPB tests are non-reactive?

Hello everyone, I could really use some help here.
My mother is 55 and she’s been struggling with her hip lately; she can barely walk on her own anymore. To give some context, about 15 years ago, she underwent two surgeries to remove melanoma from her left groin area.
After seeing the orthopedic specialists at the Mayo Clinic, they told us her hip is deteriorating. They aren't quite sure if it's due to a bacterial bone infection or if it's radiation damage to the bone.
They ordered a full blood panel, a 3D CT scan, and a bone scintigraphy.
The blood work showed elevated sedimentation levels—three times the upper limit—and CRP was four times above the limit. Everything else looked fine.
The 3D CT scan didn't provide much clarity; essentially, they still don't know the exact cause of the bone decay.
Now, I've just received the results from a three-phase hip scintigraphy and a whole-body bone scan using Tc-99m.
In the perfusion phase and the early static scintigrams, there is increased radiopharmaceutical uptake in the left hip area.
The late static scintigrams show pathological activity accumulation in the left hip. It also notes significant lymphedema in the left bone.

So, what I'm wondering is, could someone explain what this actually means in plain English?
We are heading back to the doctor with these results, but frankly, I'm at my wit's end just waiting to find out what happens next.

Thanks a lot!

melloworca6 said:I’m just going to go straight to the doctor 🙄.

If they found a low count of bacteria, they should have sent you for a full urine culture! You need to know exactly which strains we're dealing with, their concentration, and—most importantly—which antibiotics actually kill them. You don't just play guessing games with prescriptions.

It’s pointless to go get tested right now. Just finish your course of antibiotics. Then, two weeks after you've finished the meds, go back for a follow-up culture. If that comes back anything other than sterile, that is when you demand a proper analysis.

1. Honestly, they shouldn't have even run a urinalysis in the first place.
2. The results look perfectly fine; the patient isn't even experiencing dysuria or any other symptoms.
3. A UTI isn't even indicated here, let alone antibiotic treatment.
4. When it comes to urinary tract infections, the issue isn't usually about prescribing the wrong antibiotic. In a massive amount of cases—up to 90%—the culprit is E. coli. Most of the time, doctors can just follow standard guidelines for treating acute uncomplicated cystitis using
nitrofurantoin-Macrobid
norfloxacin-Noroxin
cephalexin-Keflex
sulfamethoxazole + trimethoprim-Bactrim
amoxicillin-clavulanate-Augmentin—which can also be used for more complicated cases like pyelonephritis
ciprofloxacin-Cipro—which is almost exclusively reserved for severe and complicated infections
at the appropriate dosages.

Sandra Rivera37 said:signature 😉

I was prescribed antibiotics because my ear was killing me. Of course, I didn't take them, and the pain just vanished on its own.🙂

Well, obviously. Most of those infections end up being viral anyway.

I'll try my luck here, since I was completely ignored on the other thread. 😬

FSH 3.50 (1.8 - 9.4 IU/L)
LH 5.60 (0.8 - 10.4 IU/L)
PROLACTIN 518.00 (81 - 597 mIU/L)
DHEA-S 7.10 (1.8 - 9.8 umol/L)
ANDROSTEDIONE 19.20 (1.7 - 16.4 nmol/L)
TESTOSTERONE 4.50 (0.4 - 2.74 nmol/L)
ESTRADIOL 0.223 (0.11 - 0.65 nmol/L)

Are those bolded values a massive spike? Is there actually some kind of treatment for this?

If anyone needs more details, here is my post

Thanks. 🙂

So, I ended up going in to get that AST-O checked out because I’ve been dealing with this constant issue with my tendon and, honestly, I didn't even fully grasp why the doctors were insisting on it. Now I'm just sitting around waiting for an appointment, and who knows when they'll actually get around to seeing me—it feels like forever. I’m pretty sure I’m going to have to shell out for a private specialist just to get some answers. Anyway, does anyone here happen to know what it actually means if my AST-O comes back at a 4 when it's supposed to be under 2?

coppersurfer3 said:AST could also mean -> Antistreptolysin titer

I realize I’m replying to a five-year-old post here, but I want to set the record straight. AST-O stands for antistreptolysin titer. I had it tested several times a few years back and they always used that abbreviation.

AST, ALT, and GGT are liver enzymes.

I saw somewhere that AST was being used as shorthand for that antistreptolysin titer, but I don't think people use that anymore. They probably switched to AST-O just to avoid confusion over whether you need a liver enzyme test or a titer.
(If I'm wrong, maybe one of our doctors on the forum can correct me 🙂)

goldenmarlin6 said:I went in to get checked for that Asta because I've been having tendon issues and I have no clue why I needed this test. Now I'm just waiting for an appointment with my doctor and God knows when they'll actually see me. I think I'll have to go to a private clinic. Anyway, does anyone know what it means if my Asta is 4 but it should be up to 2?

Did you get your results back yet, or are you just asking for info?

If the reference value is 2 and yours is 4, it means the titer is positive—basically, you have elevated antibodies to staph. It shows there was either an infection caused by that bacteria in your body, or one is still active.

That value looks weird to me. Back home, the reference range for this is usually around 200... and we're talking about beta-hemolytic Group A strep here, not some staph infection 😉

mellowgardener15 said:Trying my luck here; I was completely ignored on a different thread. 😬

FSH 3.50 (1.8 - 9.4 IU/L)
LH 5.60 (0.8 - 10.4 IU/L)
PROLACTIN 518.00 (81 - 597 mlU/L)
DHEA-SO4 7.10 (1.8 - 9.8 umol/L)
ANDROSTENDIONE 19.20 (1.7 - 16.4 nmol/L)
TESTOSTERONE 4.50 (0.4 - 2.74 nmol/L)
ESTRADIOL 0.223 (0.11 - 0.65 nmol/L)

Regarding the bolded numbers: is this a significant elevation? Is medication usually recommended for this?

If more details are required, here is the post

Thanks. 🙂

Hello,

Regarding your lab results, here is my assessment.

The elevated testosterone level in your case is notable. Based on clinical standards, testosterone levels exceeding 3 nmol/l (yours is 4.50) are often associated with symptoms like hirsutism.

That said, free testosterone is a more precise marker.

As for the FSH and LH ratio, the LH is higher than the FSH. While a significant inversion is typically defined by an LH/FSH ratio of 3 or greater, there are certainly signs of inversion present here.

In any case, a consultation with a gynecologist is necessary, alongside discussing a pelvic ultrasound.

It would also be wise to consider testing progesterone levels.

Once those results are reviewed, appropriate treatment can be determined; oral contraceptives (such as Diane, Yaz, or Yasmin) are one potential option.

Best regards. 🙂

analogbison13 said:That value seems off to me. Back home, the reference interval for this is 200... and we're talking about Group A beta-hemolytic strep here, not staph. 😉

It’s the same story here with the AST-O (that strep titer). This Asta test is for staph, so maybe the values are different. I’ve never had that one done myself. 🤷

melloworca6 said:It's the same here with the AST-O (strep titer). This Asta test is for staph; maybe the values are different, I've never actually had it done. 🤷

ahaaa, my bad! That's for staph!

I don't think those are antibodies for one specific strain of strep or staph, but rather for a whole group. And my take on the AST-O is that it isn't limited just to beta-hemolytic types; it covers others too.

Look, I’m no expert and I don't claim to be, but it doesn't make sense to me that a test would target just one single specific bacterium. If that were the case, you'd need a different test for every single type out there. I suspect this titer isn't pinpointing a specific strep or staph strain, but rather just signaling that antibodies are present. From there, you have to go find the actual source and figure out which beast is actually running the show.🤷

melloworca6, I'll just say this: 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏

First off, you hit the nail on the head. Using "AST" as an abbreviation for antistreptolysin titer isn't ideal; it should be AST-O or ASO. In a clinical setting, "AST" usually refers to a liver enzyme.

Regarding the biology, the streptolysin O that triggers these antibodies is released by pyogenic streptococcus—specifically Group A beta-hemolytic strep (the usual suspect behind strep throat or scarlet fever). That said, Group C and Group G pyogenic streps can also release streptolysin O.

While measuring the AST-O titer helps confirm a recent Group A strep infection, it doesn't offer much practical value during an acute bout of tonsillopharyngitis. A single number, stripped of clinical context or other diagnostic data, tells us very little.

It’s also worth noting that this value provides zero insight into the actual site of infection—whether it's the tonsils, the ears, the sinuses, or a skin infection.