Hepatitis C Testing

A few weeks ago, I took a anti-HCV test which resulted in positive. My signal to cut off raio was 4.07. I work in a hospital environment and never had any needle exposures. At times I would find holes in my glove and blood would get on my finger, but the blood was not mine and I did not have an exposure. I then retook the anti-HCV and the RNA PCR for hepatitis C. The anti HCV came back positive again at 3.97 and the RNA PCR came back negative (<50 IU/ml, <1.7 log IU/ml). My question is, what would cause the anti-HCV test to go over the signal cut off ratio if I was not exposed to hepatitis C? I read a lot of articles and they stated a S/CO ratio of <3.8 is considered "low". Mine is slightly above that which worries me.  I am wondering if I should take a RIBA test to rule out exposure.

I understand that at the time of the PCR RNA test, I did not have the virus in my blood, but could this be in an "acute stage." Wouldn't antibodies appear after the virus? If I had antibodies that truly were for HCV, wouldn't the PCR test positive (assuming I did not clear the virus on my own)?

My doctor wants me to come back in 3 months to redo the RNA PCR test. I am still worried.  Please let me know any advice or suggestions you may have.

Thank you.

[marsfreek]

if ya aint got no buggies then don't worry about antibodies. what you nead to do is get a heptimax {its good down to 5 copies per ml} just to make sure. but you are most likely ok.

[Willy50]

An elisa anti-test is not all that accurate.  A riba would be more conclusive.  

NEITHER is no where near as useful as a PCR.

Than antibody tests might tell you if you had contracted HCV.  I say *might*  because they are not conclusive.  Theyalso would not tell you if you had then cleared during the acute phase through your own immune response..

A PCR checks for actual presence of HCV RNA in the blood.  IF you are coming back below the limit of detection on a <50 ml/iu test you should be good to go.  

The antibody tests are just a cheap method of beginning screening; not determination of infection.

best,
Willy