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

Hello. Here are my recent lab results: http://i64.tinypic.com/sgo5g1.jpg

I would appreciate it if someone could share their thoughts on this.

30 years old, female, weight fluctuates between 92-99 lbs.

I maintain a fairly healthy diet (been vegan for the last 3 months), though nothing stands out visually besides the fact that I feel bloated enough to be five months pregnant.

I had these tests done because of stomach issues... a constant feeling of hunger that has persisted for years, hoarseness after talking for a while, sensitive vocal cords and throat, and some "rattling" sensations... plus weight loss and occasional pains in my abdomen and chest. My previous diagnosis (before getting a gastroscopy) was laryngopharyngeal reflux, or LPR, and I take a PPI as needed.

CRP, EKG, and finger-stick glucose levels are all normal. My next step is an H. pylori test; I tested positive seven years ago and completed treatment, and I've had annual check-ups since then which have always come back negative.

After that, I finally plan to schedule a gastroscopy under sedation to solve this mystery once and for all, as the uncertainty is starting to take a psychological toll on me.

I just got my blood work and biochemistry results back, and while most of it sits within the standard range, there are a few outliers causing me quite a bit of consternation. My glucose came in at 7.1; however, when I test myself at home with my finger-prick monitor, it almost always lands squarely in the normal zone. It makes me wonder—is there a significant discrepancy between a capillary sample from a finger prick and a venous draw? Sometimes the lab results come back normal even after fasting for about six hours, so this inconsistency is unsettling. Furthermore, while my urea (/4.0/) and creatinine (/79/) remain within their usual normal limits, I noticed a shift in my eGFR. In my last two tests—one from a year ago and this current one—my eGFR has dropped to 69, whereas the reference range is typically anything above 90. It seems this value is calculated based on a formula; interestingly, when my creatinine was lower last year (/65/), my eGFR was higher (/88/). Now, suddenly, it appears as though my kidney function isn't optimal, something I've never had to worry about before. To add to my anxiety, I've been managing hypertension for twenty years now. On top of all that, my potassium hit 5.8, which sent me into a complete panic. It occasionally drifts up to 5.1 or 5.2, but usually stays steady; seeing it at 5.8 is alarming. I’m planning to head to a private clinic in two weeks to get retested, just to ensure this isn't some fluke caused by my diet—I have been consuming quite a lot of bananas lately.
My cholesterol is sitting at 7.8, though for the last two decades, it has stubbornly fluctuated between 6.5 and 7.8 regardless of what I put on my plate. I haven't started any statins yet, but I am considering trying red rice as a natural approach. My HDL is 2.3 and my LDL is 5... I realize those numbers are high, but I can't help but observe the strange inconsistencies in human biology. For instance, I have a friend who survives almost exclusively on salads, fruit, and vegetables, yet her total cholesterol remains at 7. While another friend indulges in every greasy, sugary temptation imaginable and struggles with her weight, her total cholesterol is only a 5. It all feels rather nonsensical, doesn't it?

Michelle Ortiz said:Could someone please help me make sense of these kidney function numbers and this creatinine level?

Creatinine (s) 139 ref. range 64-104)
eGFR CKD-EPI 49 ref. > 90

in urine
Creatinine (dU) 18840 ref. range (7700-21300)
Creatinine (u) 11775

Creatinine clearance 77.9 ref.int (66 - 143)

Given that the eGFR looks quite poor while the clearance seems perfectly fine, which one should I actually be paying attention to here? We're talking about a 54-year-old male who hits the gym three times a week and was supplementing with protein until just last month.
The elevated creatinine was caught during a routine checkup, and he had been hitting the weight room just three days prior to the blood draw.

That eGFR calculation is a relatively recent addition to the books, and honestly, it's enough to give anyone pause. It creates this frustrating paradox where you see a high creatinine paired with a low eGFR—which suggests something is wrong. In my own case, my creatinine sits within a normal range, yet my eGFR is hovering at a concerningly low 69. This implies a troubling logic: anyone whose creatinine climbs toward 70 or higher will automatically see a depressed eGFR, signaling trouble even when things might be okay. It makes you wonder if everyone facing these numbers needs to go schedule an appointment with a nephrologist immediately.

This morning, I pulled out my Bayer meter to check my fasting glucose, and it clocked in at 5.6. It’s a bit of a rollercoaster compared to yesterday afternoon when it was sitting at 4.7, and then just two hours after having a meal and a sweet coffee today, it jumped to 6.1. Now I’m left sitting here wondering how all this compares to the results from my actual lab work via venous draw. Back then, it was 7.1, but honestly, I’ve been under an immense amount of stress over the last few months, and I’ve always been a naturally anxious person—especially when health issues enter the conversation; I tend to spiral into panic attacks quite easily. Generally speaking, my levels at the hospital range from 5.6 to a maximum of 7.1, though they usually hover right around 6. I remember one instance at the ER where they performed a glucose tolerance test on me, and even though my levels weren't particularly elevated when I arrived seeking help for blood pressure issues (and I had eaten beforehand), everything returned to normal within an hour. So, frankly, I am completely lost as to what these fluctuations actually signify.

Jason Vaughn482, I'm not entirely sure, but when I went in for a glucose check, my OBGYN mentioned that finger-stick readings and venous blood draws don't always match up. Apparently, testing directly from a vein gives you a different picture.
And yeah, stress can definitely spike your blood sugar. It happened to me once.

Susan Martin4 said:Jason Vaughn482, I can't say for certain, but when I went in for my glucose checkups, my OB-GYN mentioned that there’s actually a noticeable difference between testing via a finger prick versus a venous draw. Apparently, blood taken directly from a vein carries a different profile than what you get from a fingertip.
And honestly, stress is a massive factor too; it can send your blood sugar spiking through the roof—I've experienced that firsthand once before.

Still, if that's the case, I find myself scratching my head wondering how people living with diabetes manage to monitor their levels five times a day using nothing but those little finger pricks.

Hey, I’ve got a 5-year-old here. Are these lab results looking okay? Within the normal range, or what?
Tly 63.0
T help 33.0
T supr 25.0
B ly 19.0
NK 15 %
CD4/CD8 1.3
Thanks in advance.

Hi, I need some info for someone close to me...

What is MXD, and what does it mean if the levels are high?

Sarah Reed3 said:Hi, this is for a 5-year-old child. Are these test results within the normal range?
Tly 63.0
T help 33.0
T supr 25.0
B ly 19.0
NK 15 %
CD4/CD8 1.3
Thanks in advance

For a child that age, these results look perfectly fine.

Maria Ortiz7 said:Hello, I need some info for someone close to me...

What is MXD, and what does it mean if it's elevated?

The moment you see MXD on a lab report, you know you're looking at a "low-resolution" metric. It essentially means the standard CBC machine used for the test can't tell the difference between monocytes, eosinophils, and basophils, so it just lumps them all together under the "MXD" label.

In short, to figure out what's actually happening, the test needs to be rerun on an analyzer capable of full white blood cell differentiation.

Based strictly on this, your loved one likely has elevated monocytes, eosinophils, or basophils. A real interpretation depends entirely on which specific cells are high, by how much, and what symptoms they are experiencing.

Sophia Brooks50 said:I still don't quite get how diabetics manage their sugar levels by testing five times a day just from a finger prick.

Those glucose meters pull readings from capillary blood. As previously noted, capillary data—what you get "from a finger"—isn't identical to venous blood values.

That’s the point. These devices are designed for monitoring people who already have an official diabetes diagnosis.

You can't establish a diagnosis through capillary testing; that's basic principle taught in every American medical textbook or endocrinology manual. If there’s any doubt or suspicion, the only way to confirm or rule out the condition is via a venous blood glucose test.

Can someone please help me make sense of these flagged values? I'm a 53-year-old woman, been a vegetarian for quite some time now, and I've been dealing with anemia for about a year and a half. Happy to chat more via DM if needed.

WBC 5.1 x10^9/L 3.4 - 9.7
(vK) RBC 4.78 x10^12/L 3.86 - 5.08
(vK) Hemoglobin 135 g/L 119 - 157
(vK) Hematocrit 0.405 L/L 0.356 - 0.470
(vK) MCV 84.8 fL 83.0 - 97.2
(vK) MCH 28.3 pg 27.4 - 33.9
(vK) MCHC 334 g/L 320 - 345
(vK) RDW 15.1 ↑ % 9.0 - 15.0
(vK) MPV 9.4 fL 6.8 - 10.4
(vK) Platelets 182 x10^9/L 158 - 424
CBC
Result Unit Ref. interval
(vK) Neutrophils
granulocytes 43.9 ↓ rel % 44 - 72
(vK) Lymphocytes 39.5 rel % 20 - 46
(vK) Monocytes 13.0 ↑ rel % 2 - 12
(vK) Eosinophil
granulocytes 2.6 rel % 0 - 7
(vK) Basophil granulocytes 1.0 rel % 0 - 1
(vK) Neutrophils
granulocytes 2.30 x10^9/L 2.06 - 6.49
(vK) Lymphocytes 2.00 x10^9/L 1.19 - 3.35
(vK) Monocytes 0.70 x10^9/L 0.12 - 0.84
(vK) Eosinophil
granulocytes 0.10 x10^9/L 0 - 0.43
(vK) Basophil granulocytes 0.00 x10^9/L 0 - 0.06
BIOCHEMISTRY

TRACE ELEMENTS
Result Unit Ref. interval
(S) Iron 4.1 ↓ µmol/L 8 - 30

What could be causing a low MPXI? Mine is sitting at -16

Adam Clark50 said:Could someone please explain these bolded values? Female, 53 years old. I've been a vegetarian for years and have been dealing with anemia for about eighteen months now. I can provide more details via PM.

WBC count: 5.1 x10^9/L (Ref range: 3.4 - 9.7).
(vK) Erythrocytes 4.78 x10^12/L (Reference range: 3.86 - 5.08)
Hemoglobin: 13.5 g/dL (Normal range: 11.9 – 15.7 g/dL)
Hematocrit (vK) 0.405 L/L (Ref: 0.356 - 0.470)
MCV at 84.8 fL. Reference range is 83.0 - 97.2. Within normal limits.
(vK) MCH 28.3 pg 27.4 - 33.9
(vK) MCHC 334 g/L | Normal range: 320 - 345.
(vK) RDW 15.1% (Reference range: 9.0 - 15.0%)
(vK) MPV 9.4 fL 6.8 - 10.4
Platelets 182 x10^9/L (Normal range: 158 - 424)
DKS
Result | Unit | Ref. Interval
(vK) Neutrophils.
Granulocytes at 43.9%. Relative percentage is down; normal range is 44 - 72.
Lymphocytes at 39.5% (Reference range: 20 - 46).
(vK) Monocytes 13.0% (Ref range: 2–12%).
(vK) Eosinophils
Granulocytes 2.6 relative percentage. Reference range is 0 - 7.
Basophils: 1.0% (Reference range: 0 - 1%)
(vK) Neutrophils
Granulocytes 2.30 x10^9/L (Reference range: 2.06 - 6.49)
Lymphocytes 2.00 x10^9/L (Reference range: 1.19 - 3.35)
Monocytes 0.70 x10^9/L (Normal range: 0.12 - 0.84)
(vK) Eosinophil levels
Granulocytes 0.10 x10^9/L (Normal range: 0 - 0.43).
Basophils: 0.00 x10^9/L (Reference range: 0 - 0.06)
Biochemical screenings.

TRACE ELEMENTS
Result | Unit | Ref. Interval
(S) Iron levels at 4.1 µmol/L. Normal range is 8 - 30.

The results align with manifest iron deficiency, though there is no anemia present. While vegetarians are naturally prone to low iron levels, one should always consider whether there’s a more significant, underlying cause at play. It’s worth consulting a physician to rule out anything deeper. As for the neutrophils and monocytes, the counts are normal and shouldn't be a cause for concern. There's no need to get overly pedantic about percentages or obsess over every single decimal point. This should be considered a normal finding.

Kate Cox2 said:What could be causing low MPXI? Mine is at -16.

MPI—mean peroxidase activity—is a bit tricky. A high value might point toward things like megaloblastic anemia, an infection, or certain types of leukemia. On the flip side, a low reading can indicate congenital or acquired peroxidase deficiencies, which have been noted in specific cases of sepsis.

You get exactly what you ask for.

Maria Fisher46 said:MPIX—which stands for Mean Peroxidase Index—is a bit tricky. A higher value might point toward things like megaloblastic anemia, an infection, or certain types of leukemia. On the flip side, a lower value can be seen in cases involving congenital or acquired peroxidase deficiencies, which have been noted in certain forms of sepsis...

It’s funny how life works; you ask a question and get exactly what you deserve.

I have essential thrombocythemia and I'm currently on pegylated interferon. About three weeks ago, I dealt with a sore throat and took a course of antibiotics. I'm 36 years old.
I usually have my blood work done every three to four weeks—though there have been times when I've had it checked even twice in a single day—but I have never seen this specific item on any of my previous reports, and I always make sure to get very detailed panels. Since ET itself is technically classified as a type of leukemia, I really wouldn't want to deal with another diagnosis being tacked onto my record...

I already found what you posted, but I am still curious about what other possible causes might exist.

Maria Fisher46 said:You see, those little handheld glucose monitors are designed specifically to analyze glucose levels from capillary blood. It’s a fundamental distinction that often gets lost in translation, but as we've discussed before, the readings you get from a quick finger prick aren't going to be an exact mirror image of what you'd see from a venous blood draw. They are two different streams of data, much like comparing the temperature at the surface of the ocean to the temperature deep down in the trenches; they might tell a similar story, but the numbers simply won't match up perfectly.

And just there you have it—those little gadgets aren't some miracle cure; they exist solely to serve as monitoring tools for those already living under the heavy thumb of a diabetes diagnosis.

You simply cannot establish a definitive diabetes diagnosis based solely on a finger-prick capillary blood test; that is one of those fundamental truths etched into the very first pages of every single major endocrinology textbook and clinical manual out there. If you find yourself sitting there with even the slightest shadow of doubt or a nagging suspicion that something isn't quite right, don't settle for the quick check. The only truly meaningful way to confirm—or decisively rule out—the diagnosis is through a proper glucose test performed on venous blood. Anything less is just guesswork when you need certainty.

So, here’s the deal: when I had my blood drawn from the vein, my glucose level was sitting at 7.1 while fasting. Normally, I usually hover around a 6, which puts me right on that precarious borderline, even though the lab equipment always seems to flag everything as perfectly normal. It really feels like they ought to run that three-month retrospective test—you know, the A1c—just to get the full picture of what's actually happening under the hood. I remember one instance when I was in the ER; they checked my glucose, waited an hour, and then tested me again, and everything came back totally fine. But then there was that time last year when I had some coffee with sugar beforehand and my levels hit a 7—so I definitely wasn't fasting then. It's all a bit of a moving target, isn't it? Anyway, I’m going to pick my doctor's brain about this and see what they have to say.
It seems you’re still waiting on an answer regarding the eGFR results? You haven't addressed my question about that yet.

Maria Fisher46 said:The results definitely point toward manifest iron deficiency, though they aren't showing full-blown anemia just yet. Now, look—we all know vegetarians are naturally more prone to low iron levels, but you can't just shrug that off and call it a day. You really have to dig deeper and ask if there’s some more serious, underlying issue causing this deficiency. It’s the kind of thing where you shouldn't just self-diagnose; you absolutely need to sit down with a doctor to figure out the "why" behind it. As for the neutrophils and monocytes, those numbers look perfectly normal, so there's really no reason to lose any sleep over them. Honestly, you really don't need to be such a nitpicker when it comes to percentages. There's no reason to get hung up on every single decimal point like it's some kind of life-or-death situation.Honestly, you’ve gotta look at this as a perfectly clean bill of health.

Exactly.
I reached out to the doctor.
Thanks.🙂

Kate Cox2 said:I've already found what you wrote, but I'm curious about other potential causes.

Low MPXI levels usually point to a deficiency in myeloperoxidase (MPO), an enzyme found in neutrophil granules that plays a key role in fighting bacteria. This shortage can be primary—meaning it's hereditary—or secondary, caused by various underlying medical conditions.

Among these secondary triggers, iron deficiency is one of the most frequent culprits for a drop in MPXI. The list of conditions that can lead to a secondary MPO deficiency, and thus lower MPXI, is extensive: pregnancy, severe infections, clotting issues (thrombotic processes), diabetes, kidney transplants, certain blood disorders (like specific myeloid leukemias, aplastic anemia, or myelodysplastic syndromes), lead poisoning, and even certain medications like chemotherapy or some anti-inflammatory drugs.

Since you mentioned dealing with ET, it’s worth noting that MPXI is typically elevated in this condition. Interestingly, patients with ET who are undergoing chemotherapy (specifically hydroxyurea) often show decreased MPXI levels, likely due to that secondary MPO deficiency.

Given how complex your situation is—treating ET with interferon—explaining a low MPXI value isn't a straightforward task.

Sophia Brooks50 said:Well, as I mentioned, my fasting venous blood glucose was 7.1. Usually, it stays around 6, which is borderline, but the machines always say it's normal. It seems like they should do that three-month retrospective test to see... once at the ER, they gave me glucose and retested after a while and it was fine, but last year when I tested after having coffee with sugar, it was 7. I wasn't fasting then, okay, I'll ask my doctor.
You didn't answer my question about GFR.

Regarding that fasting glucose reading of 7.1 mmol/L: if you were truly fasting (meaning at least 8 hours without any caloric intake) and it was drawn from venous blood, that technically meets the threshold for diabetes. However, the standard procedure is to repeat the test to confirm it, along with an OGTT and an A1C measurement.

As for GFR, considering your serum creatinine is normal but your GFR is 63 mL/min/1.73 m2—especially since there's a possibility of diabetes (theoretically, if you aren't showing symptoms but have a fasting glucose of 7 mmol/L or higher, that's enough for a diagnosis)—you really ought to pursue further diagnostic workups to check your kidney function. This would include things like a renal ultrasound, a 24-hour urine collection to check protein levels, and a urine protein-to-creatinine ratio.

https://postimg.org/image/e5jrhz5z9/

Is this some kind of inflammation? It's for my son.

Sarah Peterson57 said:https://postimg.org/image/e5jrhz5z9/

Is this some kind of inflammation? It's for a young boy.

The answer depends on several variables—does the child have phimosis, was the area properly cleaned before urination, how long had the urine been sitting before the exam, and are there symptoms like discomfort during urination or a fever? We also need to know the child's age...

The instructions for the first post in this thread were highlighted in the title for a reason.

So, I had a 35-day cycle, and all my hormone levels came back within the normal range. I had bloodwork done on day 3 and day 21 of the cycle. Looking at that day 21 result—my progesterone was sitting at 2.41 ug/L. Now, the standard range for ovulation is 0.121-12.0, and for the luteal phase, it’s 1.83-23.9. Given how long my cycle is, I probably ovulated right around that time. Is 2.41 too low for ovulation, or is it actually fine, or am I totally misreading this? Just trying to wrap my head around it before I go see my doctor, you know? And honestly... given my age, does this mean I'm already past the point of even trying to get pregnant or... yeah. I'd love some thoughts or a take on this.