Aa
Conflicting information, what’s the real story?
This was originally posted in the STD Forums.
I am trying to get clarification on PCR DNA and Western Blot test results and timelines. There is a lot of information on the internet and much of it seems to be in conflict. In addition I found providers when you talk with them in person are equally diverse in answers and possibly their understanding. After all of that here is the situation.
I am sexually monogamous and have been for the last 20 years. My partner (female) and I have not had any relationships outside of our own in that time. However, recently I had and a sexual experience with another man. In the grand scheme of possible activities it was pretty low risk. Ultimately there was some mutual oral contact. The duration was less than a minute and was not done till completion. Although the activity is low risk I still managed to drive myself nuts wondering if I contracted something such as HIV.
Long story short I went to my med provider 6 weeks after exposure and had the PCR DNA and Western Blot test done. Additionally they tested for the other standard STDs. All tests came back negative. Now I have been told that I need to do an antibody test at 3 months and if it is negative then I’m good to go. My provider seems to be extra cautious and said wait till 6 months although his nurse told me 12. (yea!!!) I’ve also read that the PRC DNA test is very accurate long before 3 months or even 6 weeks.
So, the question is… What’s the real story?
I am trying to get clarification on PCR DNA and Western Blot test results and timelines. There is a lot of information on the internet and much of it seems to be in conflict. In addition I found providers when you talk with them in person are equally diverse in answers and possibly their understanding. After all of that here is the situation.
I am sexually monogamous and have been for the last 20 years. My partner (female) and I have not had any relationships outside of our own in that time. However, recently I had and a sexual experience with another man. In the grand scheme of possible activities it was pretty low risk. Ultimately there was some mutual oral contact. The duration was less than a minute and was not done till completion. Although the activity is low risk I still managed to drive myself nuts wondering if I contracted something such as HIV.
Long story short I went to my med provider 6 weeks after exposure and had the PCR DNA and Western Blot test done. Additionally they tested for the other standard STDs. All tests came back negative. Now I have been told that I need to do an antibody test at 3 months and if it is negative then I’m good to go. My provider seems to be extra cautious and said wait till 6 months although his nurse told me 12. (yea!!!) I’ve also read that the PRC DNA test is very accurate long before 3 months or even 6 weeks.
So, the question is… What’s the real story?
"There are documented cases of someone contracting HIV with only oral exposure."
No, actually, there are no CONFIRMED, or even believable documented cases of HIV via oral transmission...and even if there were one or two based on some crazy extenuating circumstance...it still doesn't make oral sex a real risk.
Look at it this way...if there were TRULY a risk involved, even a minor one...we'd see new cases popping up with some regularity, after all...how many people in the world engage in unprotected oral sex....by the minute? Heck, how many every second?
The CDC places a "theoretical" EXTREMELY low risk to oral sex b/c they have a responsibility to be conservative. However, a "theoretical" risk and a "real" risk are two totally different things.
"I have been trying to get a definitive answer why PCR DNA is only a diagnostic test when it appears to be very accurate and if this test is so accurate why the apparent discrepancy in the medical community as to what test should be taken when before it can be the results are considered conclusive. Thoughts?? "
Teak already addressed this. The PCR DNA test is meant to assess people that are already infected...it was NEVER meant to be a diagnostic test to diagnose new infections. I am aware that some people are using it in that manner...but really, IMO, that is inappropriate. MAINLY b/c of the higher risk of a false pos...who would want to go through that agony? Also, other than the only reason being people wanting to have answers faster to ease their minds...there is really no reason to seek out this kind of study to try to diagnose HIV infection. HIV antibody tests (ELISA) are the standard, and when taken at the appropriate time (3 months post exposure)...a negative result is completely conclusive. Incidentally...it would never be used as a stand-alone method of diagnosis anyway! A POS result would ALWAYS require confirmation of infection via an antibody test.
If I were a physician, iIwould NEVER recommend or prescribe a PCR test for the purpose of diagnosing new HIV infection, not when there are already approved and accurate tests out there. It's only a matter of a person trying to hang in there during the window period while they await their final results. I recognize the angst in that...but that is why there is counselling and psychological support out there. Some people even require a short term course of anti-anxiety meds to get them through the anxious period. Bottom line is....it IS possible to endure, even though it may be quite difficult.
No, actually, there are no CONFIRMED, or even believable documented cases of HIV via oral transmission...and even if there were one or two based on some crazy extenuating circumstance...it still doesn't make oral sex a real risk.
Look at it this way...if there were TRULY a risk involved, even a minor one...we'd see new cases popping up with some regularity, after all...how many people in the world engage in unprotected oral sex....by the minute? Heck, how many every second?
The CDC places a "theoretical" EXTREMELY low risk to oral sex b/c they have a responsibility to be conservative. However, a "theoretical" risk and a "real" risk are two totally different things.
"I have been trying to get a definitive answer why PCR DNA is only a diagnostic test when it appears to be very accurate and if this test is so accurate why the apparent discrepancy in the medical community as to what test should be taken when before it can be the results are considered conclusive. Thoughts?? "
Teak already addressed this. The PCR DNA test is meant to assess people that are already infected...it was NEVER meant to be a diagnostic test to diagnose new infections. I am aware that some people are using it in that manner...but really, IMO, that is inappropriate. MAINLY b/c of the higher risk of a false pos...who would want to go through that agony? Also, other than the only reason being people wanting to have answers faster to ease their minds...there is really no reason to seek out this kind of study to try to diagnose HIV infection. HIV antibody tests (ELISA) are the standard, and when taken at the appropriate time (3 months post exposure)...a negative result is completely conclusive. Incidentally...it would never be used as a stand-alone method of diagnosis anyway! A POS result would ALWAYS require confirmation of infection via an antibody test.
If I were a physician, iIwould NEVER recommend or prescribe a PCR test for the purpose of diagnosing new HIV infection, not when there are already approved and accurate tests out there. It's only a matter of a person trying to hang in there during the window period while they await their final results. I recognize the angst in that...but that is why there is counselling and psychological support out there. Some people even require a short term course of anti-anxiety meds to get them through the anxious period. Bottom line is....it IS possible to endure, even though it may be quite difficult.
Sorry to take so long to get back to you folks after you spent the time and effort to get back to me.
My question is born out of absolutes. I'm a biology major and as such only add to my anxiety about issues such as this. I'm not attempting to determine if a test is necessary or not with only oral exposure. Granted it is a low risk activity especially when compared to other activities. However, it is not 100% risk free which means there is a possibility. In my case there is a possibility by definition however it is unlikely. There are documented cases of someone contracting HIV with only oral exposure. I have been trying to get a definitive answer why PCR DNA is only a diagnostic test when it appears to be very accurate and if this test is so accurate why the apparent discrepancy in the medical community as to what test should be taken when before it can be the results are considered conclusive. Thoughts??
My question is born out of absolutes. I'm a biology major and as such only add to my anxiety about issues such as this. I'm not attempting to determine if a test is necessary or not with only oral exposure. Granted it is a low risk activity especially when compared to other activities. However, it is not 100% risk free which means there is a possibility. In my case there is a possibility by definition however it is unlikely. There are documented cases of someone contracting HIV with only oral exposure. I have been trying to get a definitive answer why PCR DNA is only a diagnostic test when it appears to be very accurate and if this test is so accurate why the apparent discrepancy in the medical community as to what test should be taken when before it can be the results are considered conclusive. Thoughts??
you don't need any testing to start with.. and 3 months testing is 100% conclusive.
if i am reading this post correctly...all you had was an oral exposure. is that correct????
Because it is a monitoring test not a diagnostic test. Was never meant to be a diagnostic test.
Thanks for the prompt response.
If the PCR-DNA is generally used to detect viral load of the HIV virus DNA and it is considered accurate why is not a diagnostic test?
If the PCR-DNA is generally used to detect viral load of the HIV virus DNA and it is considered accurate why is not a diagnostic test?
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
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.
