“Yes, that’s probably a good idea. Also, you might consider a quantitative test; these are typically more sensitive than a qualitative.”
Should have read:
“Yes, that’s probably a good idea. Also, you might consider a qualitative test; these are typically more sensitive than a quantitative.”
(sigh)
Yes, that’s probably a good idea. Also, you might consider a quantitative test; these are typically more sensitive than a qualitative. The qualitative will express results in a positive negative format, rather then a numerical expression. You have an extremely low signal to cut off ratio, suggesting low odds of infection as well; I think active infection is very unlikely, and you are dealing with a quirk in PCR results.
In six months let us know how things work out--
Bill
test range 25-391.000.000 IU/ml
test sensivity 25 IU/ml.
Anti-HCV antibody 0.2 S/CO
I really wonder whether i should consider taking another test in six months in case of incubation period?
Unfortunately, current technology doesn’t allow PCR quantitative reporting to zero. It’s important to look for other language in your test results. Is there mention of lower limit of detection? If you have a hard copy of the results, look for a section that describes “test range”, “dynamic range” something to that effect. It might be numbers like <5 to 1,000,000, or something in that order.
Antibody testing is not always accurate, although more prone to false positive than false negative, I believe. My guess is that you do not have HCV; typically, viral load is quantified in the 100,000s and 1,000,000s in an actively infected patient.
If you have the name of the test, someone here might be able to find limits for you.
Bill