Aa
help with test types
hello doctors,
i tested for HIV and result came back negative. i thought i had this whole situation behind me, but for some reason i can't let go completely. I'll appreciate if you read my situation and comment / advice.
About my test result : Negative 1/2 HIV
The lab analyst said that methodology was ELISA at the time of testing but when i was handed the report its shows as 'QEIA'. I confronted another employee of same lab and her response was that QEIA was better than ELISA, as if it was an upgrade made or something... The problem is i don't seem to find too much literature on the QEIA and if it truly was the proper test to take given my situation. This test was supposed to be a confirmatory test after a 'weakly reactive rapid blood test' which i take from other posts are quite common.
second lab i went is quite respected in my country, but still i trust your explanations more.
Also, result were given quite fast as they were given on same day.... and i read that i could take days for ELISA to come back. Again, this is the top lab in the DR.
My sexual exposure i believe it was low risk as it was protected sex and fellatio, but i doubt my ability to recall everything that night and i saw some blood in bed sheets on my side that scared me..
Could you please comment on the reliability of this test type?
is it good enough to overrule the weakly reactive manual test?
Should i test again? if so, which method i should ask?
Kind regards,
i tested for HIV and result came back negative. i thought i had this whole situation behind me, but for some reason i can't let go completely. I'll appreciate if you read my situation and comment / advice.
About my test result : Negative 1/2 HIV
The lab analyst said that methodology was ELISA at the time of testing but when i was handed the report its shows as 'QEIA'. I confronted another employee of same lab and her response was that QEIA was better than ELISA, as if it was an upgrade made or something... The problem is i don't seem to find too much literature on the QEIA and if it truly was the proper test to take given my situation. This test was supposed to be a confirmatory test after a 'weakly reactive rapid blood test' which i take from other posts are quite common.
second lab i went is quite respected in my country, but still i trust your explanations more.
Also, result were given quite fast as they were given on same day.... and i read that i could take days for ELISA to come back. Again, this is the top lab in the DR.
My sexual exposure i believe it was low risk as it was protected sex and fellatio, but i doubt my ability to recall everything that night and i saw some blood in bed sheets on my side that scared me..
Could you please comment on the reliability of this test type?
is it good enough to overrule the weakly reactive manual test?
Should i test again? if so, which method i should ask?
Kind regards,
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
As in my original reply, the different details of EIAs and other antibody tests really make no difference. The basic immunology of detecting HIV antibody is the same for all tests; the differences are minor.
Sorry to come back to you this late dr. just wanted to lay out that apparently in spanish QEIA stand for quimioluminscente EIA`. dont really know how to translate it in english. i hope its an improvement of the eia test and not a cheaper version :-)
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
The standard recommendation, when a rapid test gives a weakly positive result, is to do a lab-based standard test like EIA and rely on that result. From what you say, I'm sure QEIA is as reliable as any other EIA. So you have had the routine approach and it is considered 100% reliable.
Rapid tests are not weakly positive because there are "small levels of HIV antibody". If the rapid test had been positive for that reason, you can be sure the QEIA would have been positive.
Thanks for the thanks about the forum. Take care.
Rapid tests are not weakly positive because there are "small levels of HIV antibody". If the rapid test had been positive for that reason, you can be sure the QEIA would have been positive.
Thanks for the thanks about the forum. Take care.
i appreciate your quick response doctor! I have seen your other posts and you're the man! :)
i will follow your advice and will ask tomorrow morning the lab guys.
however, assuming i did have a risk, and QEIA its a FDA approved EIA test :
is a lab based EIA negative test conclusive after a very weak reactive rapid test perform that same day?
would the EIA detect even a small levels of antibodies which made rapid test to go off?
Sorry to ask you a 'scenario' question. i promise not to extend longer this thread.
regards,
i will follow your advice and will ask tomorrow morning the lab guys.
however, assuming i did have a risk, and QEIA its a FDA approved EIA test :
is a lab based EIA negative test conclusive after a very weak reactive rapid test perform that same day?
would the EIA detect even a small levels of antibodies which made rapid test to go off?
Sorry to ask you a 'scenario' question. i promise not to extend longer this thread.
regards,
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Welcome to the forum and thanks for your question.
Unfortunately I also am unfamiliar with "QEIA". In fact, when I googled it just now, the top hit brought it right back here, to this question! I would have to suggest you ask the question of the laboratory that did the test. As speculation, there is a lab company named Qiagen that makes an EIA test -- so maybe that's it? (By the way, there is no difference between EIA [enzyme immunoassay] and ELISA [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay].)
With that as background, every HIV antibody test on the market in the US and all other industrialized countries cannot be sold unless basic standards of test performance have been met and certified by the Food and Drug Administration or its equivalent outside the US. In other words, even though I am unfamiliar with QEIA, I am confident you can rely on your negative result. The difference in various test types simply on the chemical or immunological procedures to detect HIV antibody and/or p24 antigen. Regardless of the technology, the negative result means antibody is absent.
As for the exposure itself, it sounds low risk -- and that was the impression I have about Dr. Gonzalez's response on the international forum. (I have pretty good spanish, but not sufficient to take the time to understand every word of your exchange on that forum.) But I did understand that he reassured you about the initial test result, i.e. that the rapid HIV tests are more prone than the lab-based tests to give weakly false positive results, and that is undoubtedly what you experienced. Combining your repeat test result with the low-risk nature of the exposure you described (oral sex only, correct?), you can be entirely confident you don't have HIV.
I hope this has been helpful, despite my unfamiliarity with the QEIA test. Best regards-- HHH, MD
Unfortunately I also am unfamiliar with "QEIA". In fact, when I googled it just now, the top hit brought it right back here, to this question! I would have to suggest you ask the question of the laboratory that did the test. As speculation, there is a lab company named Qiagen that makes an EIA test -- so maybe that's it? (By the way, there is no difference between EIA [enzyme immunoassay] and ELISA [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay].)
With that as background, every HIV antibody test on the market in the US and all other industrialized countries cannot be sold unless basic standards of test performance have been met and certified by the Food and Drug Administration or its equivalent outside the US. In other words, even though I am unfamiliar with QEIA, I am confident you can rely on your negative result. The difference in various test types simply on the chemical or immunological procedures to detect HIV antibody and/or p24 antigen. Regardless of the technology, the negative result means antibody is absent.
As for the exposure itself, it sounds low risk -- and that was the impression I have about Dr. Gonzalez's response on the international forum. (I have pretty good spanish, but not sufficient to take the time to understand every word of your exchange on that forum.) But I did understand that he reassured you about the initial test result, i.e. that the rapid HIV tests are more prone than the lab-based tests to give weakly false positive results, and that is undoubtedly what you experienced. Combining your repeat test result with the low-risk nature of the exposure you described (oral sex only, correct?), you can be entirely confident you don't have HIV.
I hope this has been helpful, despite my unfamiliarity with the QEIA test. Best regards-- HHH, MD
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.
