When H1N1 first became an national epidemic last year, there was a lot of attention placed upon the disease, and doing everything we could to prevent it. But now, it isn't uncommon to know someone who had swine flu. And with early detection or a shot, it can be shut down relatively easy, with little chance of harm. However, the times when it isn't detected early shows it is still a deadly disease to be feared. And a recent story in Florida brings up questions about the effectiveness of detecting the deadly disease early.
When Julie Murphy first saw signs of her daughter Hayli having Swine Flu, she immediately took her to the emergency room at the nearby hospital. However, when she was given a rapid flu test, the test came backnegative, and doctors concluded she had a virus, and sent them home. But the next day, Hayli had a 104 degree fever, and her mother again brought her to the ER, only to be sent home again because of a negative rapid flu test result. The next day, though, Hayli was so weak her mother had to carry her into the ER, and doctors finally started administered H1N1 medications. But the medicine had been given so late, it had little effect, and Hayli spent the next 43 days in intensive care, no one knowing whether she would make it or not. "She was really on the edge of losing her life," said Dr. Roberto Monge, a doctor who treated Hayli. Although Hayli made it out of the ordeal alive and well, the reason for the failed early detection is still a major issue. Dr. Andrew Pavia says studies of rapid flu tests show that a negative result is wrong about half the time. But with more accurate tests costing much more and taking days for results, its hard to decide on an effective course of action. Should we keep the current test, and err on the side of caution if there's any doubt as to the result based on symptoms? Or is there another way we can keep ourselves and others safe from this deadly disease?
No comments:
Post a Comment