Welcome to the Forum. first, had you been my patient, I would not have even recommended testing, given the nature of your exposure. It was no risk for HIV. That said, I understand that many of our clients want the reassurance of a test result. Your tests now prove that you did not get HIV from this encounter.
Your symptoms are not due to HIV and are most likely some sort of community acquired, non-STD viral illness. when persons have symptoms, their NAT tests are uniformly positive and remain so. Thus the testing you got at 5 weeks absolutely rules out HIV.
The NAT is not approved for HIV diagnosis and has not been studied for this purpose as it is more expensive than standard tests and has an increased rate of false positives. In your situation however, the test does rule out the possibility of HIV from the encounter you describe.
No need for further testing. EWH
To eliminate my confusion. Are NAT and PCR synonyms. Does HIV DNA by PCR and HIV NAT by PCR same.
Have you ever prescribed this test that I took Dr.Edward. Asking since FDA did not approve and the test itself says they do not know the timing. Asking since from your experience did you see this specific test turn positive after 4 weeks for anyone. Due to technicians manually have to see the length of the pro viral DNA and determine. Even ICMA Antibody test is it good for your timeline of 6 to 8 weeks or should I go with Quest who use Elisa in the future
LabCorp the test that I took
For INFORMATION ONLY
Unilab does the specified HIV/HCV NAT by PCR Roche Cobas Amplicor FDA# 1636 (RNA For Donor screening at $100 with ****.com in South Florida-WPB and with doctors order covered by insurance
SED Labs in New Mexico does HIV Combo DUO test and can be found with any www.****.com that takes the blood and ships it to them
PCR=NAT=NAAT These are all the same sorts of tests and, in your circumstance, particularly when combined with the ICMA at any time beyond are to be believed. You do not need repeat testing. EWH
From your comments "The NAT is not approved for HIV diagnosis and has not been studied for this purpose" . It would still find the genetic material of the Virus at 5 weeks if the virus can replicate that soon correct. Asking since I got the impression that it is a test not studied by the FDA that it is reliable like the RNA or DUO test. From doctor Hunters comments above this post http://www.medhelp.org/posts/HIV-Prevention/Hiv-scare-please-advise-/show/1629619
. That "fever and rash" together and which don't seem to go for weeks for me could sound like HIV. I am sure thousands are getting tested with HIV DNA-RT by PCR for diagnosis of HIV including my Infectious diseases doctor that I visited last year prescribed the same test. I hope FDA studies this test sooner as many websites and a lot of folks on the site are taking it.
This will be the last answer. You keep asking the same questions in slightly different ways. Repeating the question will not change the answer, thus this will be my last answer.
The FACT is that HIV replicates immediately and continuously in infected persons who are not receiving therapy. Statements like "if it replicates that soon" are biologically incorrect.
The FDA will not study the test. Studies for FDA approval must be perfromed by the manufacturers. I suspect this will not be done
Nothing more to say. End of thread. EWH
I will never test with HIV DNA by PCR in the future or any non FDA approved tests.Thank you Dr. Edward. Sorry for getting on your nerves. Prosper well.
PCR testing explained by a lab technician