Aa
DNA PCR Testing Question?
Doc,
I have been searching online for more info regarding DNA PCR Testing of HIV. Across the boards I have seen a negative consenus on using this test for low risk exposures.
What would be the right time window to take a DNA PCR test? The test looks for HIV virus DNA, so wouldn't be more accurate earlier than anti-body. Isn't the DNA present regardless of antibodies?
My concerns are over a 1 time unprotected vaginal sex encounter with a female friend of mine (she said she does not have HIV, she had sex 1 other time only, unprotected though, between her last HIV test (neg)). At 40 days (5 weeks,5 days) I could not deal with the stress anymore and took a anti-body test and DNA PCR test (labcorp test from www.areuatrisk.com) and both were negatvie. I have read all of the posts with time to test positive, etc. If seroconversion hadn't happened at 40 days yet, would a PCR negative results still be valid. The reason why I am posting is at 70 days post exposure I am having some pressure (not necessarily pain) on the left side of my groin (I can't tell if my lymph nodes are swollen) and have had a headache. I really want to move on from this, as I am about to buy my first home and finally start my adult life. After the negative results I was fine, but once I felt some pressure in my groin, I started to be concerned again.
If seroconversion hadn't happend yet at the time of the anti-body test, how reliable would the DNA PCR be at 40 days. Is the false positive rate and cost of the test the real downside to this testing method, but otherwise it is a very good test? there is not a lot of information online about this testing method - besides people recommending not to take it for the false positive rate.
Also, would you recommend a retest?
Thanks for all of your help!
I have been searching online for more info regarding DNA PCR Testing of HIV. Across the boards I have seen a negative consenus on using this test for low risk exposures.
What would be the right time window to take a DNA PCR test? The test looks for HIV virus DNA, so wouldn't be more accurate earlier than anti-body. Isn't the DNA present regardless of antibodies?
My concerns are over a 1 time unprotected vaginal sex encounter with a female friend of mine (she said she does not have HIV, she had sex 1 other time only, unprotected though, between her last HIV test (neg)). At 40 days (5 weeks,5 days) I could not deal with the stress anymore and took a anti-body test and DNA PCR test (labcorp test from www.areuatrisk.com) and both were negatvie. I have read all of the posts with time to test positive, etc. If seroconversion hadn't happened at 40 days yet, would a PCR negative results still be valid. The reason why I am posting is at 70 days post exposure I am having some pressure (not necessarily pain) on the left side of my groin (I can't tell if my lymph nodes are swollen) and have had a headache. I really want to move on from this, as I am about to buy my first home and finally start my adult life. After the negative results I was fine, but once I felt some pressure in my groin, I started to be concerned again.
If seroconversion hadn't happend yet at the time of the anti-body test, how reliable would the DNA PCR be at 40 days. Is the false positive rate and cost of the test the real downside to this testing method, but otherwise it is a very good test? there is not a lot of information online about this testing method - besides people recommending not to take it for the false positive rate.
Also, would you recommend a retest?
Thanks for all of your help!
If want to get tested do the DNA pcr test HIV 1 & 2 then along with an antibody test at the same time. And then repeat the antibody test at 3 months and again at 6 months to be safe. Don't listen to the dr above that thinks the antibody test is conclusive at 4 weeks cuz it can take up to 3-6 months. Most drs only care about the insurance company they work for and don't give you all the info you need. most Drs also think the PEP is just for them to save themselves those selfish fuks.
check out this link for numbers on where to get PEP www.thebody.com/content/art32456.html
Ok don't trust any MD about viral infectionions all they know is how what medication you need to take after you've been infected and they also know there is no cure for HIV. So if you think you've been infected with any virus make sure to get something called PEP within 72 hours of possible contact. Most states don't offfer it cause insurance compnies don't cover the cost and drs don't tell you about it cuz they only do what is covered by insurance. Don't let drs and nurses tell you Its only used for them if they get pricked on the job and you don't deserve it cuz your not 100% sure you were exposed.
Also most drs say to wait 3 months for the regular HIV test and never even tell u about the DNA test again cuz insurance companies don't cover the DNA test and the reason why is cuz it's more expensive. The DNA pcr test is good anytime after 3 weeks and the DNA RNA test at 1-2 weeks.
I went to get tested 2 days after high exposure and the nurse said there was nothing else I can do but wait 3 months and then test again at 6 months but never told me about taking PEP to flush out the virus. How is it that I know about this and a fn nurse that does STD tests for a living has no idea? People r so fn retarded! Don't trust anyone and do what it takes to get answers b4 it's too late!!!
Also most drs say to wait 3 months for the regular HIV test and never even tell u about the DNA test again cuz insurance companies don't cover the DNA test and the reason why is cuz it's more expensive. The DNA pcr test is good anytime after 3 weeks and the DNA RNA test at 1-2 weeks.
I went to get tested 2 days after high exposure and the nurse said there was nothing else I can do but wait 3 months and then test again at 6 months but never told me about taking PEP to flush out the virus. How is it that I know about this and a fn nurse that does STD tests for a living has no idea? People r so fn retarded! Don't trust anyone and do what it takes to get answers b4 it's too late!!!
A related discussion, DNA PCR at 30 days?... was started.
Because the commercial laboratories and the PCR test manufacturers are promoting the test for a differnent purpose than you used it for. The main use of the test is to monitor the status of someone's ongoing HIV infection, not to diagnose new infections. For that purpose--which as I said above is not recommended in situations like yours--there is no reason to use PCR beyond ~4 weeks, when the antibody tests are positive.
HHH, MD
o_g, you and ronnie can gave out all the false info you want. So what you are saying is that Dr.HHH is incorrect in his above statement. But you should advise DR.HHH that he is incorrect.
HHH, MD
o_g, you and ronnie can gave out all the false info you want. So what you are saying is that Dr.HHH is incorrect in his above statement. But you should advise DR.HHH that he is incorrect.
Teak: Ronnie is indeed correct in calling Proviral DNA PCR a diagnostic test. That indeed is the only purpose of the test. It is not meant to monitor HIV progression and treatment. FDA approved or not is another matter and totally irrelevant to the fact that PCR DNA is only a diagnostic test and serves no other purpose whatsoever. I have to say that it seems you are not completely aware of this test and confusing it with HIV RNA test.
Just trying to help!!!
Just trying to help!!!
Teak: I said my last post was my last in this thread, but I do not appreciate your personal attacks, especially when you are spreading incorrect information. You might get the test regularly, but you are sadly uninformed on which test you are receiving. The viral load test is a PCR RNA test. Sorry, but you do not seem to understand that fact. Please move on and read up on this subject matter instead of spreading false info. Not a single link you have posted has disputed my explanation of the two tests. To the readers here, just look up on google the terms "viral load", hiv, test, PCR and you will see that the test that measures viral load for treatment is the PCR RNA test.
Ronnie like you did in the other forums. If you would read and comprehend what you've read, then you would be better off. PCR RNA is the only approved PCR dianostic test. PCR DNA in not a dianostic test it is a monitoring test for people that have already been confirmed positive and it's used to monitor their viral load. I get the darn test every three months so don't try to pull your **** on me or anyone else on this forum.
Now post your url's that says different.
05.10.2006 22:10
Gen-Probe Receives FDA Approval for APTIMA(R) HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay for Clinical Diagnostic Use
http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2006-10/artikel-7097687.asp
Gen-Probe Receives FDA Approval for APTIMA(R) HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay for Clinical Diagnostic Use
PRNewswire - October 5, 2006
Gen-Probe Receives FDA Approval for APTIMA(R) HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay for Clinical Diagnostic Use
Gen-Probe
http://www.gen-probe.com/pdfs/pi/500238-ARTRevA.pdf
Now post your url's that says different.
05.10.2006 22:10
Gen-Probe Receives FDA Approval for APTIMA(R) HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay for Clinical Diagnostic Use
http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2006-10/artikel-7097687.asp
Gen-Probe Receives FDA Approval for APTIMA(R) HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay for Clinical Diagnostic Use
PRNewswire - October 5, 2006
Gen-Probe Receives FDA Approval for APTIMA(R) HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay for Clinical Diagnostic Use
Gen-Probe
http://www.gen-probe.com/pdfs/pi/500238-ARTRevA.pdf
Teak: This is getting tedious. What you posted is not correct. The PCR RNA viral load test is the only one of the two used for treatment as it measures viral load, which is a key measure needed in treatment of HIV+ people. The PCR proviral DNA test is not used in treatment, its only use is for diagnosis. I think what you are missing is you think that just because a test is not FDA approved for HIV diagnosis, that means the test is not diagnostic in nature. That is not the case. The only use of the PCR proviral DNA test is for diagnosis, whether it is approved for that use by the FDA or not. This is my last post in this thread. If anyone is unsure about what these tests do, just look them up on the web and you will see what I post is accurate.
That's what I said to you. The PCR DNA is not a diagnostic test; it is used for people that have HIV to monitor their viral loads. However PCR RNA can be used for helping in diagnosing HIV but it is not a stand-alone test.
Teak: If you are talking about the PCR RNA viral load test then you are right as it does measure viral load. Summary:
PCR RNA viral load test - A test used in the treatment of HIV+ people. This test can also be used for diagnosis, but is almost uniformly used in treatment settings.
PCR proviral DNA test - A test used to determine if a person is infected with HIV or not. It has no use in treatment of HIV+ people because it is already known whether these people have HIV or not.
PCR RNA viral load test - A test used in the treatment of HIV+ people. This test can also be used for diagnosis, but is almost uniformly used in treatment settings.
PCR proviral DNA test - A test used to determine if a person is infected with HIV or not. It has no use in treatment of HIV+ people because it is already known whether these people have HIV or not.
Now go back to the link you provided and reread it. It doesn't mention diagnostic at all. It states, monitoring a health of someone with HIV,viral load.
Teak seems to be confusing the PCR RNA viral load test which is used routinely for monitoring HIV+ patients in treatment versus the PCR proviral DNA test which is used for HIV diagnostic purposes only as it has no role in treatment monitoring. Note that I am not making a comment on the reliability of these tests, just the difference between the two types of tests.
Below is a link to the AEGIS site which gives a basic explanation of the PCR RNA test:
http://ww1.aegis.org/factshts/network/simple/viral.html
"Viral load tests measure what's called HIV RNA. RNA is the part of HIV that knows how to make more virus. There are several different viral load tests. These tests were approved by the FDA for use in checking the health of people with HIV, to see if they may be at risk for getting sick. These tests are also approved for checking the effects of anti-HIV drugs, to see if they are working against the virus.
The results of each of these tests can be a little different, so doctors advise that people stick to the same type of test once they start using viral load testing. In this fact sheet all the viral load numbers from studies are based on what the result would be using the PCR test, as this is the most widely available test at the moment.
The website below discusses PCR proviral DNA tests. As noted, these tests attempt to detect whether HIV is present or not, they do not measure viral load:
http://www.uhl.uiowa.edu/newsroom/hotline/archives/1995/hivpcr.xml
"The UHL HIV-1 proviral DNA PCR test will reproducibly detect as few as 10 copies of HIV-1 DNA in a PCR reaction. Each PCR reaction tests 2.5 microliters of processed specimen, which is equivalent to about 30 microliters of unprocessed whole blood.
To date, 71 patient specimens have been tested at the UHL for HIV-1 proviral DNA. Eleven (15.5%) were positive for HIV proviral DNA. Strict adherence to protocol, including quality assurance and quality control guidelines, helps to insure that test results are extremely reliable for the intended uses."
Below is a link to the AEGIS site which gives a basic explanation of the PCR RNA test:
http://ww1.aegis.org/factshts/network/simple/viral.html
"Viral load tests measure what's called HIV RNA. RNA is the part of HIV that knows how to make more virus. There are several different viral load tests. These tests were approved by the FDA for use in checking the health of people with HIV, to see if they may be at risk for getting sick. These tests are also approved for checking the effects of anti-HIV drugs, to see if they are working against the virus.
The results of each of these tests can be a little different, so doctors advise that people stick to the same type of test once they start using viral load testing. In this fact sheet all the viral load numbers from studies are based on what the result would be using the PCR test, as this is the most widely available test at the moment.
The website below discusses PCR proviral DNA tests. As noted, these tests attempt to detect whether HIV is present or not, they do not measure viral load:
http://www.uhl.uiowa.edu/newsroom/hotline/archives/1995/hivpcr.xml
"The UHL HIV-1 proviral DNA PCR test will reproducibly detect as few as 10 copies of HIV-1 DNA in a PCR reaction. Each PCR reaction tests 2.5 microliters of processed specimen, which is equivalent to about 30 microliters of unprocessed whole blood.
To date, 71 patient specimens have been tested at the UHL for HIV-1 proviral DNA. Eleven (15.5%) were positive for HIV proviral DNA. Strict adherence to protocol, including quality assurance and quality control guidelines, helps to insure that test results are extremely reliable for the intended uses."
So what if Ronnie may be giving out wrong info. Who are you to try to control what people say? You may be able to do it on aidsmeds, but not here. Just because you have hiv does not make you an expert. As a matter of fact I would say the opposite.
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=1794.msg29933#msg29933
Ronnie the **** you are dish out here is the same reason you got a timeout on AidsMeds. False Information. Lets let the ww read your posts on AidsMeds and let them see if you are qualified to give out any advice.
Teak: The test that is used for treatment of HIV positive individuals to monitor their disease status is the PCR RNA viral load test. This test is used for treatment because it measures the LEVEL of virus in a person's system. That is the test used routinely in HIV treatment settings. The PCR proviral DNA test is not a viral load test so it has no use in HIV treatment monitoring as the PCR RNA viral load test does (since it is already known that hte patients are HIV+). The PCR proviral DNA test is a diagnostic test that simply tells whether HIV was detected or not (there is no viral load reporting in this test). The PCR proviral DNA test is used for, amongst other things to:
Test newborns for HIV
Test rape victims for HIV infection very soon after the rape in many states
Test actors in the american adult entertainment industry for HIV
Both types of PCR tests can be used for diagnosis, but the only purpose of the PCR proviral DNA test is for diagnostic purposes (and for testing blood donations).
Test newborns for HIV
Test rape victims for HIV infection very soon after the rape in many states
Test actors in the american adult entertainment industry for HIV
Both types of PCR tests can be used for diagnosis, but the only purpose of the PCR proviral DNA test is for diagnostic purposes (and for testing blood donations).
There you go talking about something you don't know anything about.
Now here is someone that does know what he's talking about in reference to PCR DNA tests.
Because the commercial laboratories and the PCR test manufacturers are promoting the test for a differnent purpose than you used it for. The main use of the test is to monitor the status of someone's ongoing HIV infection, not to diagnose new infections. For that purpose--which as I said above is not recommended in situations like yours--there is no reason to use PCR beyond ~4 weeks, when the antibody tests are positive.
HHH, MD
Now here is someone that does know what he's talking about in reference to PCR DNA tests.
Because the commercial laboratories and the PCR test manufacturers are promoting the test for a differnent purpose than you used it for. The main use of the test is to monitor the status of someone's ongoing HIV infection, not to diagnose new infections. For that purpose--which as I said above is not recommended in situations like yours--there is no reason to use PCR beyond ~4 weeks, when the antibody tests are positive.
HHH, MD
Teak: You did not read my post. Your original quote which I was referring to was the following: "PCR DNA test are not diagnostic tests." That statement you made is simply not accurate. The PCR DNA test, whether FDA approved or not has only one puspose, and that is for diagnosis of HIV. It is not a viral load test like the PCR RNA viral load test is, it is a test that tells you whether HIV was detected or not detected. That is a diagnostic test. Now, if you are discussing FDA approval, which is not something I brought up, then go ahead. That was not what I had responded to.
Me sux = "i am screwed in the head"/ "not thinking right" (in that sense :(). Damn, what the hell was I thinking writing that. For a min, didn't realize this was a "sexually" TD forum. Indeed straight I am man..
ROFL, you don't suck. Well maybe, I don't care. :)
I think I deserved that comment from you Teak. I am just not a happy person anymore. Me suX!!!!!!
o_g, don't start the conspiracy theories. They got FDA approval because they filed for it to be a diagnostic test and provided their studies.
Well, in that case only "APTIMA(R) HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay" is FDA approved and not any other PCR RNA also.
That way more than 3/4th of the tests used in the world are not F.D.A approved. Wouldn't you be of the view that FDA approval also got a lot to do with PR BS. I can not comprehend food and drug administration comparing the accuracy rates of 2 PCR tests over a million samples to come up with a clear cut conclusion about which 1 is better and so it should be approved. I know this issue takes the discussion further away from the main topic but what is the basis of approval. Man, I seriously have many issues. I think I just added "trust" to the list. We probably got to check who is a major stock holder in this company and what are his associations in the "u know where".
That way more than 3/4th of the tests used in the world are not F.D.A approved. Wouldn't you be of the view that FDA approval also got a lot to do with PR BS. I can not comprehend food and drug administration comparing the accuracy rates of 2 PCR tests over a million samples to come up with a clear cut conclusion about which 1 is better and so it should be approved. I know this issue takes the discussion further away from the main topic but what is the basis of approval. Man, I seriously have many issues. I think I just added "trust" to the list. We probably got to check who is a major stock holder in this company and what are his associations in the "u know where".
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.
