2nd Opinion and the need for a further test.

Brief question that may help others in the same situation.

I had a test 28 days after possible exposure which came back nagative.  The doctor in the UK told me that I had no need for any further tests at say 3 months.  The reason he gave was that never had he ever had a from his lab had a negative result at 28 days come back positive at 3 months.  Thats great news but I read conflict conflicting arguments to this depending on doctor to doctor from site to site.  

I was interested in your view from outside of the UK.

regards

Jason.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

Your doc is basically right.  The current standard HIV antibody tests almost always become positive within 4 weeks, and there is broad consensus that the still-common recommendation to wait 3 months really isn't necessary except in unusual circumstances.  However, most people would stretch the interval to 6 weeks as being slightly more secure than 4 weeks.

This has been addressed innumerable times on this forum.  For extensive discussion search the forum for "time to positive HIV test" and "HIV diagnosis".

Good luck--  HHH, MD

[plzhelpme7]

good news to hear from another expert docter opinion like Dr.H

[anotherdummy]

Yes this post helps others, thanks Jplee.

So a 5 week negative should be even more accurate?

As the original poster said his Dr. has never seen a negative at 4 weeks come back positive later, have you seen this scenario as well Dr.H? How about 5 weeks?  I know in previous posts you have said neither you or your colleagues have ever seen a 6 week negative come back positive.....does a week difference make any "real" difference? how much more accurate would it be at say 6 weeks from 5 weeks?

I have also been told a 5 week is good enough as the tests are very sensitive now and I too am somewhat confused about the conflicting info out there RE:3 month testing

Thanks

[Rob73!]

hope this helps Jplee, but the Doc who did my 28 day DUO test said exactly the same thing, almost word for word. I did have one further (rapid) test @ the 12 week mark, but this was just for peace of mind. Infact, when we did the second test i asked what the chances were of it coming back as poz - to which he repled that it would be the first time he would have seen it happen since he had been doing HIV testing.

Can i ask where you had the test done? I used Freedomhealth in London -

Anyway, I'm sure it's all good. I'm moving on, slowly. I hope you can too!

[jplee]

Same place I believe.  Wimpole Street in London a Dr Sean Cummings.  Very good Doc and very down to earth.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

All the noise about seroconversion window is getting tiresome. The data simply do not allow the precision Dumbo and others have asked for in several threads, like the difference between 4 weeks and 5 weeks. The rest of this reply is compied from one I posted a few days ago in another thread:

"Precise data on window period DO NOT EXIST. All we have are the best estimates of experts, based on their understanding of...test characteristics....  Further, there will not be more precise data in the foreseeable future. In order to nail down the window period with statistical certainty, you would need to study several hundred people with a known time of exposure and test them once a day (or at least every 2-3 days) for 3+ months. Most newly infected people do not know which date/exposure infected them, because almost nobody [with HIV] has only a single possible exposure. (Few infected people have the single exposures described in most questions on this forum.) And...such research is not a very high priority. Few people in the public health, prevention, or HIV treatment fields see all that strong a need for more precise data...."

If such a research study were done, I and most experts would predict that the result would support testing at 4-6 weeks, especially in relatively low risk settings. Just accept that 2-3 weeks is too soon, 4 weeks is good, and 6 weeks is very solid.

HHH, MD

[anotherdummy]

Thanks for the reply.  I was not asking for conversion time per se but if you had the same experience as the mentioned doctors and with people who knew when their exact date of last possible exposure was....ie. test negative at 4 weeks then pos later.  Thats all.

[skerdstraght68]

hes answered countless times that he has never see anyone 4 weeks - turn pos later.

[skerdstraght68]

"If such a research study were done, I and most experts would predict that the result would support testing at 4-6 weeks, especially in relatively low risk settings. Just accept that 2-3 weeks is too soon, 4 weeks is good, and 6 weeks is very solid."

I don't think the doc can sum up window period and simpler than that.  If you find a way to ask another question on "how accurate is my test" you will never be satisfied.

[Red Fish 88]

I have been looking through the various threads concerning the window period for various ELISA testing generations.  I took a Home Access test that uses second generation ELISA testing and I was wondering at what point the ELISA generation make no difference in the sensitivity to test positive.  If anyone has information on this or knows of a thread with this information on it, please pass it on.

Red

[skerdstraght68]

I called mass when I did my six week test and they replied that home testing meant no difference in 6 week accuracy.

[Red Fish 88]

Thanks for the information. This has been a very confusing and anxious time for me. When refering to Mass, are you talking about the state of Massachusetts. Dept of Health.  Thanks

[skerdstraght68]

No the local catholic church... Of course the state hotline.

[Never_Learn]

MY HIV test came out negative at 30 days mark, but I am not certain that it is the 4 th generation or duo test. Can I consider myself "safe" as those who have done the duo test at 4 week mark?