High Risk vs Low Risk

I was reading the information sheet on orasure's website regarding the data acquired through sample testing using the Oraquick Advance HIV 1/2 test and had a few questions....

Noted under the results for "Oral Fluid" regarding negative tests:

Low Risk: 605 Total Subjects, 605 Tested Non-Reactive, 605 WERE actually confirmed negative with WB

High Risk: 3150 Total Subjects, 3069 Tested Non-Reactive, 6 FALSE EIA POSITIVE, CONFIRMED NEGATIVE WITH WB, so total True Negative 3075.

With these results, I actually slept a lot better last night. I suggest those who are doubting or have doubts in their testing results who've been tested with the oraquick test should look up the customer letter and look over the data sheet.

The only question I have is, what constitutes "high-risk"? Either way, I'm assuming in my case, since I've only had hetero contact (a few CSW's, protected, unsure of condom reliability) however, after 3 years, I'm guessing something would've showed up, no?

However, under the Known HIV-1 Infected Individuals, the oral fluid results are as followed:

Known HIV-1: 767 Total, 762 Tested Reactive, 767 True Positive. Does this imply 5 false negative results? My question is, though there isn't a disclaimer or explanation regarding the difference between 767 ~ 762, in the beginning of the letter, it does say individuals USING (HAART) may give false-positive results.

In any event, these numbers look promising for me, and am feeling a lot better with my results. It even states that after collecting the oral sample, it must be put in the vial within 30 minutes!! I was worried because the nurse did it in under 5, therefore figured the test was messed up.

[tacotrd06]

Sorry, there's a type after ...(HAART) may give FALSE-NEGATIVES at the end of the second to last paragraph.

[tacotrd06]

Typo*....is not being able to spell a symptom of ARS? jk

[Teak]

Those that take HAART for PEP may give a false negative result. Those that are on HAART for HIV will always give a Positive result. HAART has nothing to do with antibody production.  

[tacotrd06]

"Individuals infected with HIV-1 and/or HIV-2 who are receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) may produce false negative results"

I'm not arguing Teak, without a doubt I agree with your statement, but this is written on the pamphlet.

What constitutes as a "high-risk" individual?

[Teak]

Right, those that are on PEP,  not those that are on HAART when they have been diagnosed with HIV. When you are diagnosed with HIV you already have antibodies. Antibodies don't go away because you are taking HAART.

IV drug abuses that share works.
Unprotected anal sex
Unprotected vaginal sex with multiple partners
.

[tacotrd06]

So Teak, would you say at best, my negative result after three years with the oraquick  oral test is conclusive? I'm trying to avoid getting another test done if I can rely on this one...

[Teak]

Unless you have put yourself at risk that you are not disclosing. Then your test result is conclusive.

[alpo09]

Please calm down I'd be over the moon to get negative.

[tacotrd06]

I have no other risk...Basically, 2001, Unprotected (eachother's first "supposedly", I did get EBV from her), 2002, Only once, protected, I was her first...2003 > 2004, 2 regular girls from school, protected, vaginal touching, no known cuts or anything, no symptoms following anything, 3 CSW's, EVERYTHING protected, what always bothered me was the fact that they provided the condom...As far as I know, no add'l symptoms relating to that either...and since 2004....no nothing......Tested neg. on Oct.24 2007 with Oraquick Oral Adv, never had PEP, nothing, never even had a fear of HIV until I searched "folliculitus (folliculitis)".

[tacotrd06]

*Knock on wood*, if I was infected from 2001 ~ 2004, wouldn't my viral load be so high that my body would constantly be producing antibodies? I mean, 3 years from '04 and 6 since '01....Oral, blood, or whatever I'd figure my load would be sky high.

[tacotrd06]

One last thing Teak and Chris, I promise, under "High-Risk" and "Low-Risk" classifications, either way, if you were to be infected for say 12 months, and then get tested, it wouldn't matter, correct? 12 months, is 12 months, and in my case, it's 36 if not, 42 months....So, technically, "risk" doesn't matter since I'm outside of the window period...correct?

[Teak]

You have you negative result way outside the window period. You're negative..