Aa
Massachusetts Guidelines Different for ELISA testing
Why does Massachusetts recommend a 6 week ELISA as conclusive regardless of risk while most sites recommend a 13 week test as conclusive if there was moderate to high risk? Can you clarify the discrepancy? Does it refer to different generation of tests?
despite what people (anyone) says, an 8 week test is "more-than-likely valid" result, whether "high" risk or not.
People of "high risk" unprotected vaginal/anal "should" get tested @ 3 months for conclusive results.
Though a 8 week test is highly UNLIKELY to change.
But then gain,...most people on here know that by now.
People of "high risk" unprotected vaginal/anal "should" get tested @ 3 months for conclusive results.
Though a 8 week test is highly UNLIKELY to change.
But then gain,...most people on here know that by now.
what about a rash that looks just like "classic ars"? what else could explain that?
That is something i never understood why does it matter the method of infection i always thought if u have the virus no matter how u got it 6 weeks is
conclusive. or lets say if u got it by injecting your self or unprotected anal sex
its some how a special way to get it and u need a 3 months test. i guess what i'am trying to say is if u have it a 6 week test should be enough.
conclusive. or lets say if u got it by injecting your self or unprotected anal sex
its some how a special way to get it and u need a 3 months test. i guess what i'am trying to say is if u have it a 6 week test should be enough.
i'm six weeks post exposure (elisa negative) but have terrible ars-like symptoms for three weeks. exposure was vaginal fingering with blood (no cuts). i know hhh does not consider this a significant exposure, but i am freaking out. friction from blood/vaginal secretions against skin (seems a lot like unprotected vaginal sex) from a high risk likely hiv positive female. i feel like i need more testing --when and what?
He's explained this many times, and I'm not inclined to re-look them up again. I quoted the explaination recently here on this forum. Go look.
He only recommends testing to 3 or 6 months for the highest risk exposures, not "moderate", if such a thing even exists. Unprotected anal sex with an unknown status partner, unprotected vaginal or anal sex with a known infected partner, or sharing iv drug injection equipment. Those are the risky exposures.
That's it. The only other time he recommends extended testing is if the questioner seems to be reassured no other way.
He only recommends testing to 3 or 6 months for the highest risk exposures, not "moderate", if such a thing even exists. Unprotected anal sex with an unknown status partner, unprotected vaginal or anal sex with a known infected partner, or sharing iv drug injection equipment. Those are the risky exposures.
That's it. The only other time he recommends extended testing is if the questioner seems to be reassured no other way.
I called and they explained things very well I think. 6 week test is a very good indication of your status. Nothing in life is 100%, but this would be close for someone with a normal immune system.
There has been in the past but these tests have been fine tuned over the last 25 years. If you assume that all the HIV specialists at that conference were as busy as Dr H (probably a very big assumption, but let's say they are), we're talking 3 million HIV tests over the last 5 years, none of which have recorded a 6-8 week negative and a 3 month positive. While we don't know how many came out positive and how many were at high risk versus those at low risk, that's still an awful lot of HIV tests....
it seems like even dr hhh recommends 13 week testing for moderate to high risk exposure (at least from the few posts i've seen). why is mass more liberal regardless of risk? it can't be that all the seroconverters after six weeks are immunosuppressed or other have other health problems that are causing late seroconversion. there must be some average joes who convert after six weeks right?
No, it's mostly CYA politics. You'll see differing guidelines, but most of the experts are in (off the record) agreement about 6 week testing for low risk events.
HI shiblee. No, it's got nothing to do with generation of tests. It's just a difference in opinion between MA and more conservative agencies such as the CDC. If you read Dr H's forum, he has not seen a 6-8 week negative test turn positive at 3 months in the last 5 years and he runs a clinic that does a couple of 1000 HIV tests a year. He has also been to conferences where 300 HIV specialists agreed with him. In the end, you have to decide what you are happy with. To follow less conservative guidelines such as MA and Dr H or more conservative agencies such as the CDC...:)
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
