Testing with PCR/ RNA..my apologies to Teak

My apologies to Teak.
He indeed is right.

My understanding is that this test was just recently approved late last year by the FDA.
I did read the article attached in your previous thread below.

No, less, after reading this report....I assume that this test is accurate after 28 days?
If so, why aren't so many more people testing via this testing instrument?
Is it because it is so damn expensive?

Then what actually is the clear distinction between HIV RNA and HIV DNA?

They consider an individual to be conclusively negative if the test is negative 28+ days after exposure.  I would assume a person would get an HIV antibody test in conjunction with this test for added security.

Tell me what anyone thinks.

B.

[Brian123]

Thanks for info. Keek.

I spoke with someone via phone about this testing. It seems ....and anybody tell me any different...if this person is wrong...

PCR DNA is for detecting the actual DNA for HIV.
It can detect 1-10 copies per 1,000/ml.    It is used as a diagnostic tool. This test is the one that is not FDA approved. It is considered conclusive 28 days after last risk involved.

PCR RNA is used as a qualifying test. It detects the viral load. Used primarily for persons already infected with HIV who need to use this testing as seeing where their viral load is currently at. (physicians use this test) This is the test that is FDA approved.

Then what is NAAT?  My understanding is that it used by blood banks, such as the Red Cross.  What does this test look for?

IF the DNA test is so accurate after 28 days, and someone takes this test with a standard antibody test,.....why not just take these two tests after 28 days and call it quits?  I found a place that uses Quest Labs.  and they do both tests for $349.


Any thoughts?

[Brian123]

Yes, it does make sense.
Though my understanding is that RNA is used for people already infected with the virus who need to know their viral load.
I did some research on the archives here. MD HHH has stated, that once the PCR DNA is positive, it would remain positive the rest of a person's life. Though the test has a significant high probability of false positives, if the test comes back negative at 28 days, then the test would be accurate.  IF the test turns to positive, the company (Lab Co. or Quest) runs the test again several times.

So, the question is...

If a person who was infected tested in one month, and they say that the test is accurate in 28 days, and took a antibody test in conjunction with the PCR DNA, and both tests results were negative...wouldn't the person indeed be negative?

My understanding is that antibody tests are 90% accurate by 30 days.

[WorriedT]

Hi everyone,

I think the 2 tests actually detect distinct things, though I may be absolutely wrong. HIV is an RNA virus, so the RNA tests for actual virus. When HIV infects a cell, it takes over the cellular machinery to generate its proteins and this includes insertion into the cell's DNA and generation of DNA encoding it's own proteins. So I think the DNA test detects HIV that has already infected host cells, while the RNA detects actual virus copies in the blood.

Does that make any sense?

WorriedT

[Teak]

The PCR DNA, is to monitor. The PCR RNA it to help diagnosis.

[o_g]

Again PCR DNA is only a diagnostic test to be performed 28 days post exposure for maximum sensitivity but is considered very reliable 2 weeks post exposure(check DSC website). It is not FDA approved but adult industry uses it. A qualitative DNA PCR is only and "ONLY" a diagnostic test as it has no role to play in monitoring the disease due to the fact that it is not equipped to answer anything other than a "YES" or "NO" for presence of HIV DNA in the cells.

[Teak]

o_g, it is not a diagnostic test never has been a diagnostic test. It is a monitoring test for viral loads. I guess you didn't read where OSHA fined them for improper testing when 6 people became infected.

[WorriedT]

So is it worth me getting a PCR test day 12 after exposure? Sorry - I had to ask. I posted something earlier about having unprotected oral with a female escort (giving and recieving) and I know that the risks are very low and that Dr. H would probably not even recommend testing.

However, it's a bit weird this paranoia. Sometimes, I think I can just forget about it and other times, I feel I have to know and get tested and I get a panic attack.

[Brian123]

For your risk...no...it is not even worth to get tested.
Only high risk persons should get PEP or most likely  PCR DNA.
Ex.: having unprotected sex with someone who is known to be HIV+

Your circumstance ..let it go.
Ur risk is not such that merits this testing method.