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

neonfalcon99 said:Thanks so much

What if someone refuses antibiotics? Does Medicare cover it, or is it out of pocket?

Ma'am,

TB treatment is fully covered by Medicare. It must be provided even to those without health insurance. Treatment for TB is mandatory and strictly regulated by federal law.

Once the lab isolates Mycobacterium for the first time, they report all positive cases to the local public health department based on where the patient lives.

Thanks so much for all the information. So, basically, a patient can't just refuse antibiotics without facing legal consequences? I know treatment is vital and necessary, but I was just wondering if there's actually any room for choice at all.

In that case, getting back to work really depends on the doctor's call. I'm just not sure how feasible that is in practice if they still test positive after two months of therapy.

Also, sorry if I rambled. The topic of TB is quite old news, but we needed this info urgently and couldn't find anything reliable online.

neonfalcon99 said:Thanks for the info. So, basically, a patient can't just opt out of antibiotics without facing legal repercussions? I get that treatment is vital, but I was wondering if there's actually any room for choice at all...

Pretty much.

In that case, you'd have to rely on the doctor's word regarding work. I'm not sure how feasible that is in practice if, after two months of therapy, they still test positive.

That seems fairly likely.

Also, sorry if I went off on a tangent. The topic of TB is an old one, but we needed the information urgently and couldn't find it online.

Feel free to ask anything. We'll help where we can.

Justin Phillips15 said:Hello
Back in January, I had my blood lipids checked and they were quite high: total cholesterol was 7.2, HDL 1.2, LDL 4.9, and triglycerides were 2.2. I went on a diet and managed to lose 10kg in two months, which brought my levels down to: total cholesterol 5.6, HDL 1.3, LDL 3.9, and triglycerides 1.9. Are those values somewhat okay now? I've started eating a bit more "normally," so I'm wondering if I should stick strictly to the diet. I am 34 years old, 85kg, and 175cm tall.

I went for another test after I started eating everything again. Now the total is 6.5, LDL is 4.4, and triglycerides are 1.5. HDL is 1.5. I read somewhere that you look at the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and if the total is under 6, the values are fine. Is that true?

Justin Phillips15 said:I went back for more blood work after I finally started eating normally again. Now my total cholesterol is 6.5, LDL is 4.4, triglycerides are 1.5, and HDL is 1.5. I was reading somewhere that you're supposed to look at the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, and if the total is under 6, then everything is fine. Is that actually true?

The reality is that doctors don't just look at a single cholesterol number anymore; they look at it through the lens of your overall risk for cardiovascular disease. In other words, if you've already been diagnosed with heart issues, you fall into a completely different risk category than someone who hasn't. Figure out which risk group you belong to first—only then will you know if those numbers are actually "OK" or not.

brightgull95 said:It’s true that cholesterol levels are evaluated based on your overall risk of heart disease; essentially, if you already have issues, which specific risk category do you fall into? Once you identify your group, you'll know whether your numbers are actually okay or not.

I really want to avoid starting medication for as long as I can manage it through my diet. How do I find out which risk group I'm in? My only issue was high blood pressure, but my meds have me back to normal now.

Justin Phillips15 said:I have absolutely no desire to start popping pills as long as I can manage this through my diet. How on earth am I supposed to figure out which category I actually fall into? The only thing I’ve dealt with so far is high blood pressure, but honestly, once I started the medication, everything leveled out perfectly fine.

All over the internet.
I just stumbled upon this HeartScore tool—it’s an online calculator designed to estimate your cardiovascular risk—and honestly, looking at these metrics makes me want to scream. It’s one thing to hear "watch your diet," but seeing the raw math behind how much damage is actually being done? That hits different. It forces you to look at everything: blood pressure, cholesterol levels, even lifestyle factors that most people try to ignore. It’s not just some vague health warning; it’s a calculated breakdown of your future. For anyone who thinks they're "fine" because they feel okay today, I'd say go ahead, run the numbers. Face the reality instead of burying your head in the sand. It’s eye-opening, frustrating, and frankly, a bit terrifying if you haven't been keeping up with your checkups. Use it, but be prepared for what it tells you.

brightgull95 said:Online.
https://www.heartscore.org/en_GB/acc...ick-calculator

According to this calculator, I have zero risk.

Justin Phillips15 said:According to this calculator, I have zero risk.

Well, there you go. You finally got your answer.

brightgull95 said:Well, there's your answer then.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I just don't quite get why doctors push so hard to keep everything under the limit if it isn't strictly necessary. My doctor mentioned that if I can't get my numbers back into the normal range, she’ll have me start on medication. According to her, they want my cholesterol under 5 and my LDL below 3.

Justin Phillips15 said:Alright, thanks. I just don't get why doctors push so hard to keep these numbers under certain limits if it isn't strictly necessary. My doctor basically told me that if I can't manage to get them back into range on my own, she’s going to put me on medication. So, according to her logic, my cholesterol needs to stay under 5 and my LDL needs to be below 3.

Well, you're going to have to ask her that yourself.

Hello

Can anyone take a look at these results? Are we looking at something concerning, or should I just go ahead and schedule an appointment with my doctor?
The first set of labs was done about 40 days ago, mostly just out of curiosity—my white blood cell count was running low back then.
This second set is from today, specifically regarding the white blood cell count.
I don’t have any symptoms, and I’m in my late twenties.

Thanks

[Nicholas Hernandez9] says:
Hello,

Can someone look at these results? Are they okay, or should I reach out to my doctor?
The first test was done 40 days ago just out of curiosity—my white blood cell count was low back then.
The second test was done today, specifically looking at the leukocytes.
I have no symptoms, and I'm in my late twenties.

Thanks.

To whom it may concern,

Running lab tests should always have a clear purpose. Curiosity can often lead to unexpected findings and unnecessary headaches when trying to interpret data.

First, what is your baseline? I assume you’ve had blood work done at some point in the past. In other words, is this leukocyte deviation actually new, or have your counts always sat at the lower end of the normal range? Have you been sick in the last six months? Is it possible you had an infection, a fever, or just felt "off" recently? Have you had any medical checkups lately? Do you engage in high-risk sexual behavior? Are you on any medications? Do you drink alcohol? What about your weight—has it fluctuated significantly over the last six months?

Comparing these two sets (it's a shame the first one didn't include a differential), the leukocyte count has actually risen slightly. Your platelet count also went up; it was sitting at the bottom of the normal range previously. Seeing deviations in two or more blood lines isn't ideal. Based strictly on the latest report, your lymphocyte count remains slightly low (for adults, 1.5x10*9/L is typically the floor).

If you aren't experiencing any symptoms, aren't taking medication, and don't have high-risk behaviors, my suggestion would be to repeat the CBC with a differential in about four weeks. This allows us to track the trend.

Depending on those results and your answers to my questions, we can discuss whether further investigation is necessary.

If any colleagues specializing in hematology have thoughts, please weigh in.

To whom it may concern,

I appreciate the thorough response.

Regarding your questions:

I don't have any blood work from the last few years to use as a baseline, unfortunately. I had these initial tests done by my primary care physician. I was supposed to get follow-ups through her as well, but when I showed up, she had already switched shifts. I didn't bother staying—just turned around and left. Instead, I went to a private clinic just to check my white blood cell counts and see if anything had shifted.

About six months ago, I dealt with an issue where a facial abscess flared up, causing swelling around my eye. It landed me in the ER for drainage. I was prescribed Augmentin twice: once for ten days, and then again for seven days following a minor procedure performed a month after the initial drainage. Other than that, I haven't taken any medication.

Now, here is the situation: my doctor claims this has nothing to do with my lab results. She suggested my numbers are off because of the protein shakes I consume—though I only have one a day at most 🤦. Her theory is that if I stop drinking them, the levels will normalize 🤔. What do you make of that logic? Is it sound?

I haven't experienced any fever or similar symptoms.
No high-risk sexual activity, and alcohol is rare—maybe one or two beers a month.
My weight has remained stable over the last few months. As for activity, I just hit the gym a couple of times a week.

I will certainly be repeating the labs in four weeks.

What do these abbreviations mean for the following tests?
AST, ALT, GGT, and Uric Acid

Nicholas Hernandez9 said:Dear sir,

I truly appreciate such an exhaustive response.

Regarding the answers to your specific inquiries:

Regrettably, I have not had any bloodwork performed in several years, so I lack any baseline data for comparison. These initial results were obtained through my primary care physician; however, when I intended to follow up with her for subsequent tests, she had already switched shifts. Rather than attempting to navigate the bureaucracy, I simply decided to seek private testing instead—specifically just to check my white blood cell counts to see if there was any notable shift.

About six months ago, I dealt with a localized issue where an abscess formed on my face, causing significant swelling around my eye, which ultimately required a trip to the Emergency Room for drainage. On two separate occasions, I was prescribed Augmentin; the first course lasted ten days, and following a minor procedure conducted a month after the initial drainage, I took another seven-day course of Augmentin. Aside from those instances, I haven't taken any other medications.

Now, here is the dilemma: my doctor suggested that these lab results are entirely unrelated to my underlying condition. She posited that the abnormalities are merely a consequence of the protein shakes I consume (though I strictly limit myself to one per day 🤦 ), and she believes that if I discontinue them, my levels will return to normal 🤔 . What is your professional perspective on her assertion?

I have experienced no fever or any similar symptoms.
I do not engage in high-risk sexual behavior, and my alcohol consumption is extremely infrequent—perhaps just one or two beers a month.
Furthermore, my body weight has remained perfectly stable over recent months. In terms of physical activity, I simply visit the gym a few times a week.

In any case, I certainly plan to repeat the bloodwork in four weeks.

Were these labs drawn while you were still taking antibiotics?

It would certainly be prudent to repeat the differential white blood cell count and a peripheral blood smear, though based on what has been described thus far, I wouldn't view this as a cause for immediate alarm. Generally speaking, neutropenia isn't officially classified until the neutrophil count drops below 1.5x10e9.

neonfalcon99 said:What do these abbreviations mean for these tests?
AST, ALT, GGT, Ac. uricum

AST, ALT, and GGT are liver function tests. I have no clue what that last one is.

Maria Fisher46 said:Hey there,

you didn't mention why this testing was ordered. What kind of symptoms is the patient actually having?

Anyway, there are definitely some deviations here that need more follow-up, especially that anemia. But honestly, the labs are pretty incomplete. There’s no differential on the CBC, and since there's leukocytosis, you definitely need to run a CBC with a differential. You also really need to check

ESR and CRP, beef up the biochemistry with LDH, plus bilirubin and ALP are missing. It would also be smart to get ferritin and a serum protein electrophoresis done too.

Seeing anemia alongside high urea when creatinine is still within the normal range... that could point toward GI bleeding (though, obviously, high urea can just be dehydration or whatever else). So, as a next step, they should probably do three fecal occult blood tests.

Depending on how the patient feels and what the results show, you'll need to send them for more work—labs, imaging, specialist visits, all that. I'm just listing things that can be handled at the primary care level before referring them out to a specialist.

Best regards... If you have a sec, maybe take a look at these other results? They did a full CBC and a fecal occult blood test... though I should mention, during one of the samples, there was visible blood... probably just hemorrhoids because they were feeling some stinging and stuff...
Regarding the previous CBC, the hemoglobin went up from 128 to 137.



https://ibb.co/bBvJQKq
https://ibb.co/wQ5h56f
https://ibb.co/hCttPCY
https://ibb.co/R0fMbR6

And this is the old result you commented on earlier
https://imgbb.com/c2W3fCb
Also, there aren't really any complaints or symptoms right now.

Melissa Phillips4 said:AST, ALT, and GGT are liver function tests. I'm not entirely sure what the last one is.

Thanks, everyone. Does anyone know how these tests are performed or what the turnaround time is for results? My last test should be uric acid.

neonfalcon99 said:Does anyone actually know how they run these tests or how long the wait is? The last one on my list should be uric acid.

They just draw your blood into a vial to check the serum levels, and you’re usually looking at a turnaround of maybe three hours tops.
Uric acid is the final piece of the puzzle here—it’s definitely not something they test for every single day.