Bartonella / Galaxy Test Interpretation Help

[Dakota15]

Hey PR, hope everyone is hanging in there and doing the best they can.

Reaching out today to see if anyone could possibly help me transcribe or interpret a Bartonella Galaxy Test result that I just received. Admittedly, I have very little knowledge on Bartonella and even after combing through literature or other Bartonella PR threads still struggling to interpret it.

Attached is a screenshot of the results.

TL;DR - Bartonella henselae and Bartonella quintana both show 'reactive' under the results category. I didn't know if this result was considered normal / abnormal etc.

Thanks for any help that you may provide.

 

[used_to_race]

Did you find anything relevant in the literature you could share here? I assume you'll be talking to your physician who ordered the test about the result. I'm curious how this could be interpreted as well, as to me it seems like the most you can conclude is that you had a previous exposure to Bartonella. I don't know enough about how these labs work to comment on the reliability of even that claim.

What did your doctor say about it? Did you also do the Igenex panel? That one tests for B. Henselae, are the values from the two tests consistent?

 

[Dakota15]

Appreciate your reply @used_to_race

I have my next touch-point with my Dr. in a few weeks, so it was one of those that I figured I'd ask the community in the meantime if any had knowledge. Patience is a virtue as they say. Like you, I don't know enough about these labs either but as many threads show, there are many members on PR who know a vast amount so I thought I'd try.

I just checked my Igenex and if I'm reading it correctly, it says negative (attached below). Not sure what to think given that.

 

[used_to_race]

Appreciate your reply @used_to_race

I have my next touch-point with my Dr. in a few weeks, so it was one of those that I figured I'd ask the community in the meantime if any had knowledge. Patience is a virtue as they say. Like you, I don't know enough about these labs either but as many threads show, there are many members on PR who know a vast amount so I thought I'd try.

I just checked my Igenex and if I'm reading it correctly, it says negative (attached below). Not sure what to think given that.

The same doctor had me take the Igenex panel and it was negative for everything. When this doctor recommended I take the Galaxy test, I never did it because my impression was that it wasn't clinically proven. I think it's smart that you're now trying to find a basis in the literature and in the community for the significance of your result. I know it's hard to be in the position you are in, but my advice is to be very careful before embarking on a treatment that can cause a lot of damage. Maybe in a year we will know more about what is going on and you will be able to target your illness more effectively. Then again, this doctor has experience that I lack, and has maybe seen enough cases respond to treatment for Bartonella that treatment seems warranted.

 

[rebatired]

Hi,

I have also been recently tested for Bartonella using the Galaxy Test. I came back with the same results as @Dakota15 . My doctor is saying this means I am positive for Bartonella and that it requires 6 months of antibiotics to resolve. @used_to_race - you mentioned that you don't believe in the test. Can you share how you came to that conclusion? Also, you noted that the course of treatment can cause a lot of damage. Do you say that because of the antibiotics affecting the good bacteria we are all trying to maintain?

Regards....

 

[Dakota15]

@rebatired Can I ask if your Dr. is considered one of the specialized CFS/ME clinicians?

Feel free to PM if you'd prefer..

 

[used_to_race]

Hi,

I have also been recently tested for Bartonella using the Galaxy Test. I came back with the same results as @Dakota15 . My doctor is saying this means I am positive for Bartonella and that it requires 6 months of antibiotics to resolve. @used_to_race - you mentioned that you don't believe in the test. Can you share how you came to that conclusion? Also, you noted that the course of treatment can cause a lot of damage. Do you say that because of the antibiotics affecting the good bacteria we are all trying to maintain?

Regards....

Well in my view you have to weigh the risks of the treatment against the potential benefit. Many treatments bear a lot of risk, but 6 months of antibiotics is definitely up there. If you look at another risky treatment for a different disorder, there will be a body of evidence in the literature to show that this treatment is more effective than placebo for people with the same symptoms and lab results. This is how we know that Humira, Remicade, Actemra, etc are effective in some autoimmune disorders. This is how efficacy of cancer drugs is determined. This is how the efficacy of all drugs should be determined. You have thousands of people who all exhibit similar results with numerous tests, and most of them respond well to a treatment. Safety is another thing that these studies will take into account, so you know what to expect in terms of risk. There is, however, no such compelling evidence in the case of Bartonella and long-term antibiotics (that I know of). You have a doctor saying this, perhaps on the basis of clinical experience, but you can't rely on the weight of hundreds (or thousands) of quantitatively similar data points. How many patients has that doctor really seen and how can you be sure they are similar to you?

It's not so much believing in the test or not. The test shows that you have antibodies in your blood which react to bartonella at a given concentration. I believe that, but what is really the significance of it? It's generally not correct to assume that this means you have an active infection. If the treatment were a week of antibiotics, or some more benign medication, then I say go for it. But it's not. The certainty is objectively very low here, and the risk is objectively very high. 6 months of abx is an enormous hit to your microbiome, your immune system, and, depending on the type of antibiotics, your own cells and their mitochondria. I don't know enough to say whether this is reversible, it probably is over the long-term. But I would imagine this could have significant negative effects that would last for years. It's probably reasonable to expect that, even. I don't think I'm being alarmist when I say that there will probably be effective treatment for CFS by the time the effects of 6 months of abx wears off.

 

[Dakota15]

@used_to_race definitely appreciate your input, always insightful.

I was resistant to start antibiotics for the last 4 months but just recently started after my doctor's persuasion. She was definitely passionate about me at least trying them after I shared similar viewpoints you made above, including risk / reward and long-term implications. So I won't be doing it for 6 months but she wants to at least give it minimum 4 weeks - up to 3 months. I guess when you're desperate and your doctor is passionate to try something, I felt like I almost had to...

I am a huge proponent of having a 'healthy' microbiome (I do a ton with dieting and intermittent fasting) so it is definitely going outside my comfort zone but I have to trust my doctor that she knows more than I and has my best interest with getting better in mind

 

[used_to_race]

So I won't be doing it for 6 months but she wants to at least give it minimum 4 weeks - up to 3 months. I guess when you're desperate and your doctor is passionate to try something, I felt like I almost had to...

I wish you the best of luck and this sounds like a reasonable compromise. Did you guys have a discussion about the immune-modulating properties of these abx? I feel like I've heard of people who feel better on the medications (to some extent), and then they feel worse again after coming off of them. This is interpreted as "there must be an infection that isn't completely dying off, so I need to be on the abx for longer next time", when another explanation is that the abx are modulating the immune system and making you feel better through a mechanism separate from their antimicrobial properties. So I guess my advice (obviously coming from a non-doctor so should be taking with a huge grain of salt) is to consider that when interpreting your response to the medication.

But I feel like there must be lots of cases out there of people who tested positive for these infections, took the abx, got better, and are now healthy. If I were talking to your doctor (and as you know, I've seen her as well), I would ask her if she's aware of any such case reports in the literature.

There is a guy here in LA I just heard about who was doing the IV abx as prescribed by this doctor, and he was getting worse and worse. He has recently switched things up and is getting plasmapheresis here in the city. To be fair, his doctor at some point recognized that the abx weren't working and was instrumental in pushing for him to switch to this other treatment. So while I disagree with her on this point, I don't think she's completely irrational or anything.

 

[crypt0cu1t]

There is a guy here in LA I just heard about who was doing the IV abx as prescribed by this doctor, and he was getting worse and worse. He has recently switched things up and is getting plasmapheresis here in the city. To be fair, his doctor at some point recognized that the abx weren't working and was instrumental in pushing for him to switch to this other treatment. So while I disagree with her on this point, I don't think she's completely irrational or anything.

Is the plasmapheresis helping him? What diagnosis did he use to get it?

 

[vision blue]

I do know about Galaxy lab that they have a patent for a bartonella culture medium. if bartonella is there, it makes it grow and then makes it easier to detect. but my recollection is that's only when you are looking for the orgnaism itslef (pcr) not when youre looking for antibodies.

i've spoken to one of the guys that co owns Galaxy- the one that's the vetrinerian that got interested in vector borne diseases. he then teamed up with a (human) rheumatologist for some studies with humans, sometimes vetranarians. Theyve got some papers that are case studeis, others reviews, other a larger sttudy. All interesting articles to read , and the guy seems smart- but i still always wonder when there's a conflict of interest with a company and profits at stake.

its true that antibodies can go apparently up and down for bartonella- but still the contradicotry igg for henlsae between galaxy and igenex that the original poster posted still bugs me. How close together in time were they ordered? (nor is it clear to me why igg antibodies, once positive, would ever go down. I thought the point of igg antibodies is that the organism keeps those forever- but perhaps not and someone will correct me and say only for some organisms does it keep them forever).

i found this thread becasue i just posted one on bartonella (its on my skin, mouth and nose, according to ubiome, and trying to decide how much expentenditure i should give to tracking it down. conventional igg and igm antibodies at conventional lab were negative).

 

[Garz]

bartonella is a complex and often poorly understood organism.
it is notoriously difficult to reliably detect with immunology based blood tests - even when present and causing illness ( indirect tests ).
It is not present in the blood of chronically infected persons in any detectable quantity the majority of the time - and is only released into the blood cyclically - this contributes to very low detection rates via ELISA and IFA tests. it is also why the enhanced PCR tests usually collect 3 blood samples on 3 different days to improve chances of collecting enough DNA.
however conventional wisdom states that it causes only acute disease and mostly self resolves in the immunocompetent human host.
one point of potential reconciliation of these views is the chronically infected person likely has suppressed or modified immune function and hence will not display typical symptom picture or immunology.

the research/reference section of the galaxy diagnostic site is worth a read - there are plenty of references there that are not by the owners of the lab - and help flesh out the picture.

your galaxy tests results are basically positive for both species. as I understand it the numbers are the highest dilution at which reactivity of antibodies is detected - the higher the dilution ration eg 1:256 - the higher the reactivity ( you could read that as the greater the positive result signal is )