Aa
To ALL on the 6 week thing
This just posted today from Dr. HHH
This has been discussed on this forum innumerable times. Use the search link to look for "time to positive HIV test". But the points bear repeating.
In theory, potent chemotherapy or very advanced immune deficiency (e.g., someone dying of cancer) may delay the time to seroconversion. To my knowledge even this has never actually been reported in the medical literature; it's only theoretical. For practical purposes, no known medical condition or drug appears to significantly delay seroconversion.
Many offical bodies take a conservative approach and stick with the older 3 month limit, partly on the advice of their lawyers. Also, when test manufacturers seek FDA approval for the labeling about their tests, typically they only have evaluated test performance in people known to have been infected 3 months or longer. Therefore, by FDA regulation they cannot claim their tests pick up infection earlier than that. That doesn't mean the tests don't become reliable earlier, only that it wasn't studied carefully. So many agencies stick with the FDA-approved information in the manufacturer's package insert. But not all agencies do so. For example, forum users have reported that the Massachusetts state health department advises 6 weeks.
It is true that I have never had a patient who took more than 6-8 weeks to show positive, but I don't actually test that many positive persons. However, at a meeting of ~200 HIV experts a year ago, by show of hands nobody else had seen serconversion delayed more than 6-8 weeks in the past several years, i.e. with the current standard tests
This has been discussed on this forum innumerable times. Use the search link to look for "time to positive HIV test". But the points bear repeating.
In theory, potent chemotherapy or very advanced immune deficiency (e.g., someone dying of cancer) may delay the time to seroconversion. To my knowledge even this has never actually been reported in the medical literature; it's only theoretical. For practical purposes, no known medical condition or drug appears to significantly delay seroconversion.
Many offical bodies take a conservative approach and stick with the older 3 month limit, partly on the advice of their lawyers. Also, when test manufacturers seek FDA approval for the labeling about their tests, typically they only have evaluated test performance in people known to have been infected 3 months or longer. Therefore, by FDA regulation they cannot claim their tests pick up infection earlier than that. That doesn't mean the tests don't become reliable earlier, only that it wasn't studied carefully. So many agencies stick with the FDA-approved information in the manufacturer's package insert. But not all agencies do so. For example, forum users have reported that the Massachusetts state health department advises 6 weeks.
It is true that I have never had a patient who took more than 6-8 weeks to show positive, but I don't actually test that many positive persons. However, at a meeting of ~200 HIV experts a year ago, by show of hands nobody else had seen serconversion delayed more than 6-8 weeks in the past several years, i.e. with the current standard tests
Get your 6-8 week test. Rest easy till the 12 week conclusive. I don't see what's so difficult here...
Its just stating that why there are some people who dont believe why a test is reliable before 3 months.
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.
