To Teak...

[gm11]

Thanks for the response...  I don't believe, however, you understood the context of my question.

I know I was at low risk and didn't necessitate testing, but, I am a phobic and a paranoic, so I need 100% closure to things... esp those of which I cannot get a tangible grasp on.  

I'll repeat the question (pls read both paragraphs to get the full story)...  

would like to know whether a weak-positive result on an Oraquick-Rapid Oral Test would DEFINITELY result in at least an INDETERMINATE Western Blot result if the WB blood sample is drawn the same day as the Oraquick test is taken (assuming one is truly HIV-positive all the while)???

I was told by Dr. HHH that a rapid test will never tell you something that a WB doesn't.  I received a weak-positive result (faint line) on an Oraquick test 5 weeks after my potential exposure; this was followed by a negative WB result from a blood sample that was taken on the same day as the Oraquick.  I am concerned about the threads I have read though which say that the WB can TAKE LONGER to show a positive result than the Oraquicks (or other ELISA tests).  If this is the case, my Oraquick could have been a true positive and not enough time had elasped post-exposure to show any kind of response on the WB (i.e, a positive or indeterminate result).  I would think that if I was positive, I would have at least had an indeterminate result on the WB given that the Oraquick did indeed pick up something.  Am I correct with this assumption?

Bottom line... is it possible to get a negative WB result from a blood sample taken the same day as one receives a very "weak-positive" Oraquick result?

Thanks again for your help...  (cute pooch BTW)...

-GM

[gm11]

Thanks for the help Teak...  

best of luck to you...

[Teak]

http://www.orasure.com/uploaded/398.pdf
Page 11
Limitations of Tests.
Number 8

No matter how faint the line. That is a positive result. A WB will determine if it a true or false positive.

[gm11]

I understand where you are coming from... but, I am trying to think of it in terms of let's say that the 5-wk Oraquick weak-positive was a true positive... would that DEFINITELY result in a WB (blood taken the same day) of at least an indeterminate status?

[Teak]

If you would read the approvals on rapid tests they state that a negative result may not be negative at all if test is taken before three months post exposure. There are no test approved to give you a conclusive negative test result earlier than 3 months. The answer to your question on taking a WB to early would give you a false negative or indeterminate and inwhich if you do get an indeterminate they will make you come back and retest later. The testing clinic should have advised you of early testing.

[gm11]

... we're still not on the same page...

I do not understand your assertion about rapid tests are not to be taken until 3 months post-exposure... why not?  I hear folks going to get the Oraquick swab all the time at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, etc.  In my case, it was 5 weeks.

I have likewise heard that the WB is the 'gold standard' and trumps everything else.  My concern though is that since the Oraquick result was such a weak positive (very faint line), that it may have been too early for the WB to pick up anything (maybe I was in very early seroconversion).  If there is ANY seroconversion going on, will a WB ALWAYS come back with at least an indeterminate result?

Thanks 4 your time on my thread... :-)

[Teak]

For one, rapid tests are not to be taken until 3 months post exposure. WB tests trump all tests when it come to get a confirmed result. All positive tests must be confirmed by a Western Blot or a comparative test.