Aa
window period
Congratulations for your work.
In approximately 9 weeks (post exposure) I received a negative HIV result. It was done by a rapid test (finger blood) named Oraquick. The window period is still controversial (as far as I know). Some people say that (since Oraquick is not able to find p24 antigen) the mark has to be 3 months.
1)Is 9 weeks really enough or I need to test again?
2)I have read that it depends on the risk. But I don't think it makes sense. If I had a high (or low) risk exposure it will not take longer (or shorter) to seroconvert.
3)Have you ever seen someone seroconvert in more than 9 weeks?
Thanks,
In approximately 9 weeks (post exposure) I received a negative HIV result. It was done by a rapid test (finger blood) named Oraquick. The window period is still controversial (as far as I know). Some people say that (since Oraquick is not able to find p24 antigen) the mark has to be 3 months.
1)Is 9 weeks really enough or I need to test again?
2)I have read that it depends on the risk. But I don't think it makes sense. If I had a high (or low) risk exposure it will not take longer (or shorter) to seroconvert.
3)Have you ever seen someone seroconvert in more than 9 weeks?
Thanks,
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Oraquick is generally considered a third generation test. It is 100% reliable, or close to that, after 6-8 weeks and certainly at 9 weeks. And your 9 week exposure was risk free, since HIV has never been known to be transmitted by fingering or other hand-genital contact, even if pre-ejaculate fluid or other genital secretions are involved. If that was your only potential risk, you didn't need HIV testing at all.
The "silly" part isn't your asking the question. It is in assuming that my individual experience makes any difference in the chance you have HIV.
So my advice is that you move on with no concern about HIV. All is well.
The "silly" part isn't your asking the question. It is in assuming that my individual experience makes any difference in the chance you have HIV.
So my advice is that you move on with no concern about HIV. All is well.
before you answer my last question (above) I need to correct something: I miscalculated. My test was not done after 9 weeks, but 10 weeks, since my exposure was July 1st.
Only one more question (truly! I know everyone says it). Is oraquick 2nd and 3rd generation? I tried but could not find it. I am asking you this because you said it happened in the past (late seroconversion) with the older HIV antibody tests. But if oraquick is 2nd generation, then it is similar to those used in the past (detecting IgG antibodies). Am I correct?
It is very interesting (and clever) your answer (question 2). Thanks.
Sorry for not having said my exposure. My 9 weeks exposure (i.e., the last one) was being fingered (with pre-cum on hands) by someone with unknown status. It took long and was traumatic (with blood from my anus). Also I received (he sucked my penis) once.
I had others exposures but it was more than 5 months ago, so I think I do not need to think about those.
PS.: I only do not think I did a silly question (n. 3). It was just a question from someone who is not expert on this subject.
Thanks
It is very interesting (and clever) your answer (question 2). Thanks.
Sorry for not having said my exposure. My 9 weeks exposure (i.e., the last one) was being fingered (with pre-cum on hands) by someone with unknown status. It took long and was traumatic (with blood from my anus). Also I received (he sucked my penis) once.
I had others exposures but it was more than 5 months ago, so I think I do not need to think about those.
PS.: I only do not think I did a silly question (n. 3). It was just a question from someone who is not expert on this subject.
Thanks
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Welcome to the forum. By chance, this question is very similar to the one immediately prior to yours; see http://www.medhelp.org/posts/HIV-Prevention/Testing-Waiting-Period/show/1593012
1) With an antibody-only test, such as Oraquick, a 9 week result is virtually 100% reliable -- maybe truly 100%. In the preceding thread, I provided the link to yet another thread that explains why lots of agencies continue to recommend 3 months, even though it probably is unnecessary.
2) Test performance per se does not vary with risk. But overall interpretation does. If someone describes an exposure that carries only 1 chance in a thousand of catching HIV, a negative test that is "only" 99% acurate reduces the person's chance of having HIV from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 100,000. However, if the exposure is one that carries a 10% risk of infection, then the same test result reduces the likelihood the person caught HIV to 1 in 1,000. And improvement, but not nearly as reassuring as the 1 in 100,000 figure. (In your case, you say nothing about your exposure, which would have been helpful in assessing your risk.)
3) Whether I have seen someone with such late seroconversion is a somewhat silly question. It happens I have not, but it has happened. However, it probably has happened only with the older HIV antibody tests, not in use for over 10-15 years.
I hope this helps. Best wishes-- HHH, MD
1) With an antibody-only test, such as Oraquick, a 9 week result is virtually 100% reliable -- maybe truly 100%. In the preceding thread, I provided the link to yet another thread that explains why lots of agencies continue to recommend 3 months, even though it probably is unnecessary.
2) Test performance per se does not vary with risk. But overall interpretation does. If someone describes an exposure that carries only 1 chance in a thousand of catching HIV, a negative test that is "only" 99% acurate reduces the person's chance of having HIV from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 100,000. However, if the exposure is one that carries a 10% risk of infection, then the same test result reduces the likelihood the person caught HIV to 1 in 1,000. And improvement, but not nearly as reassuring as the 1 in 100,000 figure. (In your case, you say nothing about your exposure, which would have been helpful in assessing your risk.)
3) Whether I have seen someone with such late seroconversion is a somewhat silly question. It happens I have not, but it has happened. However, it probably has happened only with the older HIV antibody tests, not in use for over 10-15 years.
I hope this helps. Best wishes-- HHH, MD
You are reading content posted in the HIV - Prevention Forum
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
