Aa
Oraquick Advance at 6 weeks..
How accurate would the Oraquick Advance (Oral Swab) at 6 weeks after possible exposure?
I've read all through the forums about how the newer generations are more sensitive, but since Oraquick doesn't go by "generations", how accurate would it be at 6 weeks?
I know 3 months is "conclusive" per CDC guidelines - but I've seen many EXPERTS saying 6 week tests are accurate and they haven't seen anyone's test change from negative to positive at that time. Does this also apply w/ the oraquick advance?
I've read all through the forums about how the newer generations are more sensitive, but since Oraquick doesn't go by "generations", how accurate would it be at 6 weeks?
I know 3 months is "conclusive" per CDC guidelines - but I've seen many EXPERTS saying 6 week tests are accurate and they haven't seen anyone's test change from negative to positive at that time. Does this also apply w/ the oraquick advance?
Per joggen's disclaimer, "Always consult your personal physician or referred health care professional if you are concerned about any symptoms you may be experiencing and/or your risk of possible infection with HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases, and follow his or her advice concerning their testing, treatment, evaluation, diagnosis, or prevention (including Post Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP))"
Dr hhh and Dr hook's posts seem to indicate 6 week test is closer to 99% than 90%. So does most other forums where people have first hand experience eithe being a counselor or a doctor.
Make sure you use a doctor that specializes in HIV and it's transmission and follows the proper guidelines to testing and does not use off label tests that are not approved by the FDA and their manufacturer which would be a violation of the federal and state False Claims Acts .
i am having a difficult time understanding exactly "why" this post is continuing.
the poster had a REAL risk.
the poster educated himself and knew the testing guidelines about when to test.
the poster tested at 6 weeks.
the poster "knows" when a conclusive test is.
now. is it a fact that today's tests are more sensitive than they were in the past? can they pick up hiv earlier than they did in earlier years? of course...it's called progress. with that being said...UNTIL THE CDC, FDA, AND THE MANUFACTURERS OF THE TESTS CHANGE THE GUIDELINES...NO ONE SHOULD BE SAYING DIFFERENTLY...AND I MEAN NO ONE ! ! ! ! !
as you know, a 6 weeks test is a good indication of your status...and is highly unlikely to change. you also know that the guidelines still state that in order to get a conclusive result...you must test out to 3 months.
you have been given the facts...it is up to you to either test again or accept your 6 weeks negative. if i were in your shoes...i would FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES FOR OBTAINING A CONCLUSIVE RESULT.
this post needs to end ! ! ! ! !
the poster had a REAL risk.
the poster educated himself and knew the testing guidelines about when to test.
the poster tested at 6 weeks.
the poster "knows" when a conclusive test is.
now. is it a fact that today's tests are more sensitive than they were in the past? can they pick up hiv earlier than they did in earlier years? of course...it's called progress. with that being said...UNTIL THE CDC, FDA, AND THE MANUFACTURERS OF THE TESTS CHANGE THE GUIDELINES...NO ONE SHOULD BE SAYING DIFFERENTLY...AND I MEAN NO ONE ! ! ! ! !
as you know, a 6 weeks test is a good indication of your status...and is highly unlikely to change. you also know that the guidelines still state that in order to get a conclusive result...you must test out to 3 months.
you have been given the facts...it is up to you to either test again or accept your 6 weeks negative. if i were in your shoes...i would FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES FOR OBTAINING A CONCLUSIVE RESULT.
this post needs to end ! ! ! ! !
Have no idea as to Why you would post on a forum when you alread knew you had a risk and you knew when you needed to test. Guess you have a lot of time on your hands to waste and you believe that waisting other peoples time is of some benefit to you.
I like what everyone has to say - but this is the deal, in my opinion.
Why would I want to post on a forum and be told information I already know, ie. "3 months test is conclusive"?
When I take the time to post on the forum and explain my situation, I'd really appreciate more than a copy-and-paste from the CDC website. I've looked at the CDC website, I've read the manufacturers inserts, I've read through the forums...
What I was expecting is pretty much what joggen has done, given me his opinion. Not reiterated what I've read on countless websites spouting off CDC guidelines. I agree with the guidelines, but I'm not asking for what the CDC says, not asking for what a CYA lawyer driven approach is - but in terms of real life experiences of experienced people like teak and lizzie.
I just think that with someone as experienced and well educated as teak, that an actual well-thought out post rather than quoting what the CDC says would mean alot more to me, and all the people that read these forums. I'm not at all saying that I don't appreciate what teak does here, it's just that I'd really appreciate knowledge regarding HIS experience - not what the CDC says. I already know what the CDC says.
Why would I want to post on a forum and be told information I already know, ie. "3 months test is conclusive"?
When I take the time to post on the forum and explain my situation, I'd really appreciate more than a copy-and-paste from the CDC website. I've looked at the CDC website, I've read the manufacturers inserts, I've read through the forums...
What I was expecting is pretty much what joggen has done, given me his opinion. Not reiterated what I've read on countless websites spouting off CDC guidelines. I agree with the guidelines, but I'm not asking for what the CDC says, not asking for what a CYA lawyer driven approach is - but in terms of real life experiences of experienced people like teak and lizzie.
I just think that with someone as experienced and well educated as teak, that an actual well-thought out post rather than quoting what the CDC says would mean alot more to me, and all the people that read these forums. I'm not at all saying that I don't appreciate what teak does here, it's just that I'd really appreciate knowledge regarding HIS experience - not what the CDC says. I already know what the CDC says.
I think I've generated some confusion in a statement I made here.
I will post here one more time so I can clarify.
When I said that testing usually isn't necessary after a low risk condom break, I meant that in the context of _annual HIV and STD screening_ for sexually active people, which would cover such incidents.
I have stated this before repeatedly in previous threads, but forgot to mention it here.
I'm sure people will still differ with me on this, but the main argument for annual testing vs. testing immediately after the low risk incident is cost in terms of health care dollars vs. benefit.
However, if someone has an incident and hasn't been tested recently, that is certainly a good time for their regular checkup. And, annual screening applies to sexually active people who haven't had condom breaks as well.
I will post here one more time so I can clarify.
When I said that testing usually isn't necessary after a low risk condom break, I meant that in the context of _annual HIV and STD screening_ for sexually active people, which would cover such incidents.
I have stated this before repeatedly in previous threads, but forgot to mention it here.
I'm sure people will still differ with me on this, but the main argument for annual testing vs. testing immediately after the low risk incident is cost in terms of health care dollars vs. benefit.
However, if someone has an incident and hasn't been tested recently, that is certainly a good time for their regular checkup. And, annual screening applies to sexually active people who haven't had condom breaks as well.
COMMUNITY LEADER
Very good discussion went on this post. Difference of opinion is always good, if done with an intention to share knowledge and convince other purely on the basis of logic. And I really appreciate that this intention was well preserved in this debate.
In my humble opinion, I would agree with Nurse Girl that yes, risk is a risk, regardless of its degree of magnitude and must be ruled out by appropriate screening. Naturally, we don't compromise anything less than zero when it comes to our own life, and especially in my part of the world, HIV/AIDS is still a horrible life threatening disease due to, lack of quality medical care, non-availability of proper nutrition to everyone and limited accessibility to HAART. So in our part of the world, we focus more on abstinence and monogamy, purely under the influence of local environment and conditions, which may not be that applicable in the developed world.
In my humble opinion, I would agree with Nurse Girl that yes, risk is a risk, regardless of its degree of magnitude and must be ruled out by appropriate screening. Naturally, we don't compromise anything less than zero when it comes to our own life, and especially in my part of the world, HIV/AIDS is still a horrible life threatening disease due to, lack of quality medical care, non-availability of proper nutrition to everyone and limited accessibility to HAART. So in our part of the world, we focus more on abstinence and monogamy, purely under the influence of local environment and conditions, which may not be that applicable in the developed world.
This isn't a numbers game! A person either had a risk or they didn't. Yes, of course we can use risk assessment to help ease the mind of a worried person, or help to explain the urgency of seeking PEP in a high risk situation, but a risk is a risk, period.
It would be crazy to advise someone who had a true risk that testing isn't necessary. And irresponsible as well.
I certainly wouldn't take the "odds" if I had a risk...I would be testing.
And, yes.....a 6 week negative IS extremely reassuring, but the reason that teak, lizzie, myself and others recommend testing out to 3 months is because 1.) it is the CDC guidelines, and 2.) Testing POS after a 6 week negative isn't likely, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE.
Like lizzie said...facts are facts. Using risk assessment, and giving approx % is great to allow a person to know how concerned they may need to be.....but again...a risk is a risk, and in the end...the "odds" don't matter when it comes to the NEED to test.
It would be crazy to advise someone who had a true risk that testing isn't necessary. And irresponsible as well.
I certainly wouldn't take the "odds" if I had a risk...I would be testing.
And, yes.....a 6 week negative IS extremely reassuring, but the reason that teak, lizzie, myself and others recommend testing out to 3 months is because 1.) it is the CDC guidelines, and 2.) Testing POS after a 6 week negative isn't likely, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE.
Like lizzie said...facts are facts. Using risk assessment, and giving approx % is great to allow a person to know how concerned they may need to be.....but again...a risk is a risk, and in the end...the "odds" don't matter when it comes to the NEED to test.
Those are testing guidelines, which include testing everybody regardless of risk, not risk assessments.
I'm done with this thread.
I'm done with this thread.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5514a1.htm
Look at who wrote it and you show us where they used statistical values in when to test and who should test.
Look at who wrote it and you show us where they used statistical values in when to test and who should test.
Risk is always judged using statistical factors and empirical evidence and it is not the same as status.
You are making the mental mistake of equating the two.
Telling everyone here who had unprotected sex that they need to test at 3 months is not a risk assessment.
You are making the mental mistake of equating the two.
Telling everyone here who had unprotected sex that they need to test at 3 months is not a risk assessment.
You can't judge a risk using statistical factors. Statistical factors will not tell anyone if they were infected or not by their exposure, only a test at the proper time will tell them their status.
Again, take it up with Medhelp.
I'm not aware of any Medhelp policy banning such assessments.
I am only complying with this Forum's stated purpose:
"If you believe you have been exposed to HIV and want help to judge your risk, would like advice about HIV testing, or have questions about the effectiveness of condoms or risks associated with specific sexual practices, this is the site for you."
I'm not aware of any Medhelp policy banning such assessments.
I am only complying with this Forum's stated purpose:
"If you believe you have been exposed to HIV and want help to judge your risk, would like advice about HIV testing, or have questions about the effectiveness of condoms or risks associated with specific sexual practices, this is the site for you."
Odds and factors are used in statistical computations for funding not for assessments in an assessment forum.
Teak, those numbers (prevalence of HIV in hetero females without risk factors, and frequency of transmission) are from Drs. HHH and Hook.
Both doctors use those figures almost every day in their assessments on the _Expert_ Forum. If you have a problem with that then take it up with them.
Both doctors use those figures almost every day in their assessments on the _Expert_ Forum. If you have a problem with that then take it up with them.
That explaination is totally wrong. Look at the new data of the increase in hetrosexual transmission and then tell me those odds are reliable.
They're not using two different standards. It all comes down to the risk of the person being tested.
Risk of infection is based on two factors- the likelyhood the partner is infected x the frequency of transmission of the particular sex act.
Say a male college student has a condom break with a girl during vaginal sex. So, for him his risk would be 1/1000 x 1/2000 = 1/2,000,000. If that person tests at 6 weeks, the likehood of a false negative would be no higher than 1/20, so a negative result would make his odds of infection at 1/40,000,000 (1 in forty million). Most people would consider that pretty rock solid evidence that the person is free of HIV.
Now, say a bisexual man bottoms an anonymous partner at a gay bathhouse. His odds of infection would be 1/5 x 1/100= 1/500. If that person tests at 6 weeks, a negative result would shift his odds to 1/10000. An encouraging statistic, but still high enough that another test would be needed at 3 months to put the risk to a more acceptable range (in the 1 in millions).
The same standard is being used, it's just that different people can have vastly different risks. All conclusive testing really is a reduction of the odds of infection to an improbable range. There is nothing magic about the arbitrary designation of 3 months as conclusive.
This is how Dr. HHH has explained it- just read the archives.
Risk of infection is based on two factors- the likelyhood the partner is infected x the frequency of transmission of the particular sex act.
Say a male college student has a condom break with a girl during vaginal sex. So, for him his risk would be 1/1000 x 1/2000 = 1/2,000,000. If that person tests at 6 weeks, the likehood of a false negative would be no higher than 1/20, so a negative result would make his odds of infection at 1/40,000,000 (1 in forty million). Most people would consider that pretty rock solid evidence that the person is free of HIV.
Now, say a bisexual man bottoms an anonymous partner at a gay bathhouse. His odds of infection would be 1/5 x 1/100= 1/500. If that person tests at 6 weeks, a negative result would shift his odds to 1/10000. An encouraging statistic, but still high enough that another test would be needed at 3 months to put the risk to a more acceptable range (in the 1 in millions).
The same standard is being used, it's just that different people can have vastly different risks. All conclusive testing really is a reduction of the odds of infection to an improbable range. There is nothing magic about the arbitrary designation of 3 months as conclusive.
This is how Dr. HHH has explained it- just read the archives.
Diver, regardless of the type of incident, CDC says 3 months. The doctors on this forum have said 6 weeks is statistically sufficient if the persons status is unknown. Your confusion is exactly why the CDC states 3 months (one of the reasons, at least).
COMMUNITY LEADER
I got never confused with Teak's words, precise yet comprhensive.
What confuses me, two different standards for detecting the same virus. Three months for an event when someone had unprotected (or condome broken) sex with an HIV positive person. In my opinion, more than a test he is an aligible case of PEP (knowledgeable, please guide me). For rest of all other exposure, 6 weeks are enough,,,?? I am trying to understand how and why. Whnever there is a transmission, it got to be and has to be from someone positive. So why 6 weeks are enough in this particular case, just because we did know the confirmed status?
Once the virus invaded, now the matter is between the invader and the immune system of the person, how sooner it produces antibodies. The virus gives a damn care to its route and mode of entry,
What confuses me, two different standards for detecting the same virus. Three months for an event when someone had unprotected (or condome broken) sex with an HIV positive person. In my opinion, more than a test he is an aligible case of PEP (knowledgeable, please guide me). For rest of all other exposure, 6 weeks are enough,,,?? I am trying to understand how and why. Whnever there is a transmission, it got to be and has to be from someone positive. So why 6 weeks are enough in this particular case, just because we did know the confirmed status?
Once the virus invaded, now the matter is between the invader and the immune system of the person, how sooner it produces antibodies. The virus gives a damn care to its route and mode of entry,
thank you....teak's words was confusing when he said an ORAL RAPID TEST before 3 months can give you a FALSE negative result...that's y it scares me....but anyway,,,thanks again....
jonathon03, don't be a thread jacker.
Here, we are talking about MY condom breaking, pulling out seconds later, and testing negative at 6 weeks.
The girl claims she tested a 2-3 weeks after our incident and was negative too.
Here, we are talking about MY condom breaking, pulling out seconds later, and testing negative at 6 weeks.
The girl claims she tested a 2-3 weeks after our incident and was negative too.
Then you can take appropriate action to maintain your health. You must know that intellectually.
But I still don't understand what all the fear is about, when you already have an 11 week negative, which is probably more than 99% reliable.
There probably is no practical difference between a test at 11 weeks and one taken now, but I just think this will keep bothering you until you have had an 'official', conclusive result.
But I still don't understand what all the fear is about, when you already have an 11 week negative, which is probably more than 99% reliable.
There probably is no practical difference between a test at 11 weeks and one taken now, but I just think this will keep bothering you until you have had an 'official', conclusive result.
it's because i'm afraid to know the answer....what if it turns out to be positive?
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.
