Why Not Western Blot First?

Hey,

Why don't they use the Western Blot test first? If it is the gold standard confirmatory test. If someone is HIV negative with the ELISA test post 3 months exposure...could the Western Blot pick up the HIV infection? I'm confused why everyone doesn't just use the Western Blot right away!

Thanks

[flow1987]

Western Blots HIV tests are more expensive tests, and they take longer to perform. Therefore, they are not recommended as a "screening test", as labs only use them to confirm sero-positive screen tests. If you had HIV, you would of tested sero-positive by 3 months. It is rare (I emphasis RARE) for someone to be sero-negative for the HIV antibody after 3 months of being infected.

A gal at the clinic that tested me for HIV in August told me that people who test sero-negative at 3 months, and then sero-positive afterward, are people who are already immuno-compromised, for example, people undergoing chemotherapy/cancer treatment, or another treatment for another very serious disease that is not HIV/AIDS.

You can ask your doctor to do a test that will test for the virus, however, you would probably need to run it by your insurance first, because there are some insurance companies out there who won't pay for the confirmatory or virus test on a sero-negative screening test.