Aa
Negative HSV test due to a "local" infection?
I've had Herpes-like symptoms recurring in my genital area for over 1,5 years after an sexual encounter. So i have had 3 blood tests done during this time: first after 8 weeks from possible exposure, second after 11 months from possible exposure, and last of them was done last month, 1,5 years ater possible exposure. The type on the test performed to my understading was ELISA that didn't differentiate between HSV1 and HSV2. And that didn't really matter because the result was negative everytime, meaning - due to the general guidance, that i am HSV-negative altogether. Right?
But: the infectious disease specialist i saw, said that if the infection is local, the body doesn't produce antibodies to be detected in a blood test. That is somewhat confusing, because i thought that most of the herpes infections are "local" and not systemic? If my doctor is right, that would mean that all the general info about herpes blood tests and their accuracy in diagnosing herpes, oral or genital, was wrong or at least very misleading.
So, is it really so? Of course i asked my doctor this : Isn't herpes almost always local and not systemic, meaning it presents itself as a sore or a blister on lips or genitals? And why are antibody tests then used and recommended fo diagnosing that type of HSV-infections if the body isn't really likely to produce antibodies to be detected?
Answer was that the body produces antibodies to be detected in blood mostly if there is, for example, mouth full of blisters - but not if there is, for example, one blister on a lip?
This goes against pretty much everything i've read about diagnosing herpes via blood tests and the reliability of them in doing so.
I understand that false positives and false negatives do happen but do they really happen that way? And if they do, wouldn't that mean that most of the negative blood tests for HSV (when there is a reason to believe in a possibility of being infected) were actually false negatives, if it really is that Unusual for the antibodies to be produced in a way that could be detected in a blood test if the infection (like most of the HSV-infections?) is local?
But: the infectious disease specialist i saw, said that if the infection is local, the body doesn't produce antibodies to be detected in a blood test. That is somewhat confusing, because i thought that most of the herpes infections are "local" and not systemic? If my doctor is right, that would mean that all the general info about herpes blood tests and their accuracy in diagnosing herpes, oral or genital, was wrong or at least very misleading.
So, is it really so? Of course i asked my doctor this : Isn't herpes almost always local and not systemic, meaning it presents itself as a sore or a blister on lips or genitals? And why are antibody tests then used and recommended fo diagnosing that type of HSV-infections if the body isn't really likely to produce antibodies to be detected?
Answer was that the body produces antibodies to be detected in blood mostly if there is, for example, mouth full of blisters - but not if there is, for example, one blister on a lip?
This goes against pretty much everything i've read about diagnosing herpes via blood tests and the reliability of them in doing so.
I understand that false positives and false negatives do happen but do they really happen that way? And if they do, wouldn't that mean that most of the negative blood tests for HSV (when there is a reason to believe in a possibility of being infected) were actually false negatives, if it really is that Unusual for the antibodies to be produced in a way that could be detected in a blood test if the infection (like most of the HSV-infections?) is local?
Okay, thanks. I don't see how i'm over-thinking this though, because isn't it understandable to be confused about getting information that conflicts with other information out there, from a person that is very specialized in infectious diseases? It wasn't my own theory, just something that i was told by an authority on the subject. So i needed some kind of clarification for that information being incorrect, and that i got. Thanks.
The nerve pain related to herpes from buttoaks down to legs and most of the time u can have nerve pain without any sores or blister but ur viurs is active on ur nerve. It won't kill u or even ur partner or even ur kids ..its a skin disease and u can get herpes by check hands with others too then u spread to ur anywhere in ur body the same like warts. Its not HIV to kill u but the problem u one would like to be sick even with a flu or cold. No one will live forever... its our life.
Thank you
Thank you
could this be herpes? yes it could be but it's more likely that it isn't. have you seen a dermatologist at all yet when you have the rash?
grace
grace
No i haven't seen a dermatologist with the rash on because it's difficult to have the right timing for an appointment. But now i got a "time-flexible" appointment to a dermatologist so i can negotiate about being seen with the rash.
The dermatologist i saw without the rash though said also that it's not herpes and that i can pretty much rely on my blood test results (there were two taken at the time). But he didn't say what else it could be. Of course i understand it's hard to say without seeing the rash.
Still, the nerve pains and the rash being recurrent - coming and going - doesn't bring anything else to mind than herpes.
The dermatologist i saw without the rash though said also that it's not herpes and that i can pretty much rely on my blood test results (there were two taken at the time). But he didn't say what else it could be. Of course i understand it's hard to say without seeing the rash.
Still, the nerve pains and the rash being recurrent - coming and going - doesn't bring anything else to mind than herpes.
all sorts of skin issues that can occur that will also cause tingling and such. you saying it looks scaly sounds more like a fungal infection or even eczema or something going on. hopefully your rash reoccurs on a weekday and you can be seen promptly for a better work up!
Yes, let's hope so.
Talking of it reoccuring, i think it would be good to mention that there's not That clear line between the rash being on or off. Because i can see almost all the time very little to moderate traces of it on the area it usually appears - so that area looks at least little scaly all the time, and when the rash "recurs", the area becomes more noticeably scaly and the "scales" become red. I think that is somewhat non-herpes-like trait unless the area has been little scarred (due to herpes) so that i can see the change in it although it's not on?
Something like psoriasis has came to my mind too (that can cause joint sensations too) but i don't know how likely it would present itself only as a sexual reaction on genitals and not anywhere else.
Talking of it reoccuring, i think it would be good to mention that there's not That clear line between the rash being on or off. Because i can see almost all the time very little to moderate traces of it on the area it usually appears - so that area looks at least little scaly all the time, and when the rash "recurs", the area becomes more noticeably scaly and the "scales" become red. I think that is somewhat non-herpes-like trait unless the area has been little scarred (due to herpes) so that i can see the change in it although it's not on?
Something like psoriasis has came to my mind too (that can cause joint sensations too) but i don't know how likely it would present itself only as a sexual reaction on genitals and not anywhere else.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Herpes Community
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Millions of people are diagnosed with STDs in the U.S. each year.
STDs can't be transmitted by casual contact, like hugging or touching.
Syphilis is an STD that is transmitted by oral, genital and anal sex.
