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?
Dr. HHH and Hook typically recommend 6-8 weeks for exposures such as yours.
If the exposure is high risk (e.g. confirmed HIV positive partner) then they usually recommend testing out to three months.
And it doesn't make any difference if the test is an oraquick test.
If the exposure is high risk (e.g. confirmed HIV positive partner) then they usually recommend testing out to three months.
And it doesn't make any difference if the test is an oraquick test.
She actually took an HIV test a couple weeks after our encounter which came back negative - but she went to the doctor because she became ill. She was diagnosed w/ Autoimmune Vasculitis.. apparently her red blood cells are swollen or something.
I just don't know about all this... autoimmune vasuclitis??? hiv????
i'm afraid her hiv test wouldnt be accurate because of the autoimmune vasculitis but i don't know.
I just don't know about all this... autoimmune vasuclitis??? hiv????
i'm afraid her hiv test wouldnt be accurate because of the autoimmune vasculitis but i don't know.
So based on my 6 week negative and her negative (don't know how long before her last possible exposure was) ... but statistically... the likelyhood of her being infected and within 6 weeks is pretty low, amirite?
Unless she was having regular sex with an HIV positive partner, I would think her chances of having HIV are just about zero with her negative test.
For the average heterosexual woman without any special risk factors, it's below 0.1% anyway.
For the average heterosexual woman without any special risk factors, it's below 0.1% anyway.
You need to get a conclusive test at 3 months. An oral test given earlier than three months is known to give false negative test results. Only a 3 month test is conclusive.
I will be taking another at three months per CDC guidelines. With that said, from what I've read, a 6 week negative is highly unlikely to change. Plus the girl tested negative and my exposure was for no more than 5 seconds... I'm hoping dr h and everyone else is right about 6 week time frame and somewhat low risk exposure.
I'm hoping dr h and everyone eps
I'm hoping dr h and everyone eps
And thanks for scaring me some more teak. ;)
Lots of what i've read says to not expect 6 week results to change as average seroconversion time is less than 30 days
Lots of what i've read says to not expect 6 week results to change as average seroconversion time is less than 30 days
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.
Teak and Lizzie are just going by the official guidelines. But that doesn't mean your result is going to change.
Broken condom incidents usually don't even require testing from a risk perspective, and with your 6 week negative you're more likely to get hit by a flying sheep than have HIV.
Broken condom incidents usually don't even require testing from a risk perspective, and with your 6 week negative you're more likely to get hit by a flying sheep than have HIV.
Broken condoms incidents USUALLY don't requiere testing? Tell that one to the people that have been infected because of a condom failure. Had joggen send the notice given on the oral tests taken to early he would have seen the problems with taking the oral tests to early and he would also have seen what state discontinued using oral tests for that reason.
Yes, just read the Expert forum archives where they have repeatedly said such incidents don't require testing..
The average male who has a broken condom incident is more likely to die from a lightning strike than contract HIV.
Yes there are people who are at significant risk from condom failure (high risk partner (e.g. confirmed HIV) or activity (bottoming)), but that doesn't apply to the original poster.
If you don't comprehend those facts than that's fine but don't needless scare the OP about his HIV risk or the validity of his 6 week test result.
The average male who has a broken condom incident is more likely to die from a lightning strike than contract HIV.
Yes there are people who are at significant risk from condom failure (high risk partner (e.g. confirmed HIV) or activity (bottoming)), but that doesn't apply to the original poster.
If you don't comprehend those facts than that's fine but don't needless scare the OP about his HIV risk or the validity of his 6 week test result.
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=1&DR_ID=54297
Why were they missing so many, it was because the testing centers were not following the manufactures guidelines and were giving conclusive test results before the recommended testing guidelines. Their guidelines states 3 months post exposure to obtain a conclusive negative test with the oral tests as does the guidelines for all blood tests.
Why were they missing so many, it was because the testing centers were not following the manufactures guidelines and were giving conclusive test results before the recommended testing guidelines. Their guidelines states 3 months post exposure to obtain a conclusive negative test with the oral tests as does the guidelines for all blood tests.
That could have been through user error, a bad batch from the manufacturer, or any number of reasons.
Yes, I know, that's your mode of last resort- when you can't attack the argument, you attack the arguer.
I appreciate everyone's passion in relaying accurate information. Teak, I understand that from your standpoint, you're referring to CDC guidelines and what the test manufacturers state.
Joggen, I understand what you're explaining is that a heterosexual encounter with a woman of unknown HIV status, having a condom break and withdrawing within 5 seconds is considered "low-risk" and that after having a 6 week negative, my chances of that changing are very low.
What I understand myself, is that time after time, the medical experts/Dr's/counselors on this forum and others have stated that they have never seen a 6 week negative turn positive since the 80's. I also understand that due to my very short exposure time, my risk is even lower.
Per the topic of this forum: "If you believe you have been exposed to HIV and want help to judge your risk, would like advice about HIV testing...." I would really like teak to help me "judge my risk", especially after 6 week negative. Instead of simply stating "3 months is conclusive", which I, and anyone else that has taken the time to read any amount of CDC guideline/manufacturer information would already know.
I'm not here asking what my risk was from oral sex or from eating from the same silverware. I believe my question is valid and would deserve more than a copy-and-pasted excert from the CDC webpage.
I
Joggen, I understand what you're explaining is that a heterosexual encounter with a woman of unknown HIV status, having a condom break and withdrawing within 5 seconds is considered "low-risk" and that after having a 6 week negative, my chances of that changing are very low.
What I understand myself, is that time after time, the medical experts/Dr's/counselors on this forum and others have stated that they have never seen a 6 week negative turn positive since the 80's. I also understand that due to my very short exposure time, my risk is even lower.
Per the topic of this forum: "If you believe you have been exposed to HIV and want help to judge your risk, would like advice about HIV testing...." I would really like teak to help me "judge my risk", especially after 6 week negative. Instead of simply stating "3 months is conclusive", which I, and anyone else that has taken the time to read any amount of CDC guideline/manufacturer information would already know.
I'm not here asking what my risk was from oral sex or from eating from the same silverware. I believe my question is valid and would deserve more than a copy-and-pasted excert from the CDC webpage.
I
are you serious with what you said about the oral rapid test accuracy?? you said here that it could give FALSE NEGATIVE before 3 months period?? ok,, you scared me now...i thought i have read someone else's post here that at 11 week is somehow reliable and conclusive??? i have a NEGATIVE test result at 10 weeks???? i shouldn't be certain that i am really NEGATIVE????i'm confused,, can you please stress out more info..thanks!!
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.
