Aa
Rimming, Papillophlebitis, HIV?
Dear Doc,
The last couple of months have driven me crazy. This is what happened:
1. Early Jan 2012, I had unprotected oral whereby a CWS performed rimming on me
2. About 3rd week of February, I went to see an Ophthalogist for light shadow in my right eye which has occurred for a few weeks. Initial diagnosis was Papilledema and doc asked me to do a brain NRI, which showed no internal pressure in the brain
3. I went to see another doc and that doc said i suffered from Papillephlebitis, which may not have any cause.
4. I did blood test include HIV duo at about 8 weeks after the (1) possible exposure, which came out negative
With the above, now at about 3 months, I'm still worried that i caught HIV. Do i still need to test again? Presumably antibodies would appear in test if my eye condition got to this stage. Doc also said there is a cotton wool spot in one eye, but he said if it were HIV, it usually appears in both.
Please help. I am going crazy.
THanks
The last couple of months have driven me crazy. This is what happened:
1. Early Jan 2012, I had unprotected oral whereby a CWS performed rimming on me
2. About 3rd week of February, I went to see an Ophthalogist for light shadow in my right eye which has occurred for a few weeks. Initial diagnosis was Papilledema and doc asked me to do a brain NRI, which showed no internal pressure in the brain
3. I went to see another doc and that doc said i suffered from Papillephlebitis, which may not have any cause.
4. I did blood test include HIV duo at about 8 weeks after the (1) possible exposure, which came out negative
With the above, now at about 3 months, I'm still worried that i caught HIV. Do i still need to test again? Presumably antibodies would appear in test if my eye condition got to this stage. Doc also said there is a cotton wool spot in one eye, but he said if it were HIV, it usually appears in both.
Please help. I am going crazy.
THanks
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
the 3 month recommenation is out of date.
We get many questions about the meaning of HIV test results at different time points. This is now confused by the availability of a variety of different types of tests. The traditional and most widely used tests for HIV are tests for antibodies to HIV which are available both as so-called "rapid" or point of care tests which can be done in the clinic and laboratory based antibody tests. For all practical purposes both of these types of test perform comparably and provide accurate information on the presence or absence of HIV infection in virtually everyone at 8 weeks following exposure. The recommendations for testing at 3 and even 6 months are the result of two factors- data from older tests no longer used (you really do not need to worry about which generation of tests you were tested with, at this time virtually all tests are far more sensitive that they were even 2-3 years ago when the 3 month recommendation was made) and secondly, the fact that some, mostly governmental agencies which have to provide recommendations for virtually everyone without the sort of interactions such as those you get with your doctor or on personalized sites such as this one, feel they cannot "afford" to be wrong and therefore make recommendations and guidelines which leave most people unnecessarily nervous for 4-6 weeks longer than the 6-8 weeks it takes virtually everyone to develop HIV antibodies. EWH
We get many questions about the meaning of HIV test results at different time points. This is now confused by the availability of a variety of different types of tests. The traditional and most widely used tests for HIV are tests for antibodies to HIV which are available both as so-called "rapid" or point of care tests which can be done in the clinic and laboratory based antibody tests. For all practical purposes both of these types of test perform comparably and provide accurate information on the presence or absence of HIV infection in virtually everyone at 8 weeks following exposure. The recommendations for testing at 3 and even 6 months are the result of two factors- data from older tests no longer used (you really do not need to worry about which generation of tests you were tested with, at this time virtually all tests are far more sensitive that they were even 2-3 years ago when the 3 month recommendation was made) and secondly, the fact that some, mostly governmental agencies which have to provide recommendations for virtually everyone without the sort of interactions such as those you get with your doctor or on personalized sites such as this one, feel they cannot "afford" to be wrong and therefore make recommendations and guidelines which leave most people unnecessarily nervous for 4-6 weeks longer than the 6-8 weeks it takes virtually everyone to develop HIV antibodies. EWH
Doc
thanks for your reply. On the "definitive result" you described above, are you suggesting that a 2-month is definitive? Are you basing on the assumptions that if there are noticeable eye problems, antibodies would have been detected since the amount would be sufficient? I read a million other articles suggeting 3-month is the definitive timeline, with other references suggesting that 3-month is too long of a period in modern day testing?
hopefully i can rest my mind on this.....
thank you again for your advice.
thanks for your reply. On the "definitive result" you described above, are you suggesting that a 2-month is definitive? Are you basing on the assumptions that if there are noticeable eye problems, antibodies would have been detected since the amount would be sufficient? I read a million other articles suggeting 3-month is the definitive timeline, with other references suggesting that 3-month is too long of a period in modern day testing?
hopefully i can rest my mind on this.....
thank you again for your advice.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Welcome to the Forum. the situation you are describing is one that we encounter relatively frequently here on the forum an which I refer to as "true-true, but unrelated". the risk of getting HIV from receiving or giving oral sex is essentially zero. There are no well documented cases in which it is clear that HIV has been transmitted by oral sex (this includes rimming as a form or oral sex). In your own case, you have clearly confirmed that you i not get HIV through getting tested at a time when the results are definitive. I urge you to believe your test results, you do not have HIV and there is no need for further testing.
As for your papilledma, this may be a serious issue but it is not closely or particularly related to HIV. It sounds as though your doctor has done a good job of initiating an evaluation. If there are further questions, I suggest that you ask for your doctor to work with a neurologist to sort things out.
In the meantime, please don't worry that you acquired HIV from the encounter you describe above and do not worry that you got HIV. You have proof that you did not.
I hope my comments are helpful. EWH
As for your papilledma, this may be a serious issue but it is not closely or particularly related to HIV. It sounds as though your doctor has done a good job of initiating an evaluation. If there are further questions, I suggest that you ask for your doctor to work with a neurologist to sort things out.
In the meantime, please don't worry that you acquired HIV from the encounter you describe above and do not worry that you got HIV. You have proof that you did not.
I hope my comments are helpful. EWH
To add further, all blood tests came back negative and other tests also were normal. I've been prescribed with steroids for the past 2 weeks. There is still pain on an off in the right eye where the problem is
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.
