Understanding results

[Lostlost]

No symptoms but took test do to unprotected sex. Occurrence > 30 days.

One test

HSV 1   LgG > 3.5
HSV 2.   LgG. 1.25

Diagnosed with chlamidia as well

Doctors said borderline and take test again in 30 days.

I took another test. Elisa one week after the test above.

Confirmed clamidia
Also gave me result of
HSV - 2 Antibody - IgG (Elisa).      25.3. RU / mL

Which their scale consistent with yours is positive - "likely infected with HSV 1 or 2. Recommend for clinical examination."
The scale Below this level was "borderline" and range of 16 - <22
Would you consider this low positive for both 1 and 2.  Is the fact that 1 is high have any interpretation on results?
My partner has not complained of any discomfort. Want to be really clear on results before I talk to her

What is best course of action.

[Lostlost]

Love u Howard!

[HowardH]

It's conclusive. You do not have HSV2 -- congratulations! Don't do any more testing unless and until you develop typical genital herpes symptoms.

[Lostlost]

Everyone

Took test 3 month post exposure to be sure

Results are
HSV type 1. > 3.5. No change.
HSV type 2        .52.   Vs. first time 1.25

Is this conclusive. Can I put this behind me and just live and treat the hsv 1?

[HowardH]

Most regulars who reply on this forum do not keep returning to older threads, and this is the wrong forum for questions about chlamydia or STDs other than herpes. You are welcome to re-post your questions on the STD forum.

[Lostlost]

Team. Lost this question

Report
Avatar_m_tn
Lostlost  
Feb 07, 2015
To: Life360Blank
No comment on chlamydia other than positive from urine test. Sorry.

Grace if too early for test. Why would anti bodies register at the level above. Surely if showing antibodies the body is fighting something. Could it be something else. I am from us. Live in Asia. Any place in Asia you can get WB?

Thanks everyone for the information.

Seven days on antibiotics. Hopefully clears up the C. And praying for false positive but hopes low.

[HowardH]

Almost certainly not.

[Lostlost]

Related question. About 3 weeks after contact. I did get a rash on my eye lid. Lower portion. Red. And in corner. All on skin. Not in the eye. It is just getting better, after 1.5 months. Now healing can make out some small scabs. Can this be related to herpes?

[HowardH]

The chlamydia NAATs (DNA tests) are so sensitive that a positive result might be due to contamination from another site. A well known chlamydia researcher once swabbed the inner thighs of women with genital chlamydia and found positive results in a whopping 70%. Obviously the skin of the thighs wasn't infected, it was just local contamination with genital fluids. It's easy to imagine that someone infected at any body site could cross contaminate him/herself, e.g. by finger contact with the mouth after using the toilet. So the possibility has to be considered that some such "infections" are just transient contamination, i.e. that chlamydia hasn't actually taken hold in the oral cavity. This is purely speculation -- to my knowledge no research on this has been done. But it's reasonable to suppose it might explain some apparent infections that otherwise seem unlikely -- as well as the very big differences that have been found between throat culture vs NAAT.  Also for gonorrhea, by the way.

An illustration of how incredibly sensitive the NAATs are:  One scientist involved in developing such tests (whose company was in Chicago) said that if you took a sugar cube sized amount of chlamydia DNA and mixed it evenly into Lake Michigan, a test of lake water could be positive. I don't know if the tests are really that sensitive, but you get the idea.

[Lostlost]

No comment on chlamydia other than positive from urine test. Sorry.

Grace if too early for test. Why would anti bodies register at the level above. Surely if showing antibodies the body is fighting something. Could it be something else. I am from us. Live in Asia. Any place in Asia you can get WB?

Thanks everyone for the information.

Seven days on antibiotics. Hopefully clears up the C. And praying for false positive but hopes low.

[Life360_Dave]

Howard when you say transient contamination to you mean that it was found in the throat area but was not being transmitted to form an infection?

[HowardH]

My statement above shouldn't have been so dogmatic sounding. This is an active area of research, and the previous research showing minimal if any oral to genital chlamydia transmission could be what's at fault here. More research is needed. But it remains the case that the increased reports of oral chlamydia almost entirely reflect the improved sensitivity of NAAT (i.e. DNA testing) over culture, and more research is needed on the meaning of a positive oral chlamydia NAAT. It is possible that postive results by NAAT might occur from transient contamination, and in amounts that may not be easily transmitted.

[HowardH]

My understanding agrees with the statement from Dr. H, quoted by Life360. Yes, there are "plenty of reports" of oral chlamydia. But careful analysis reveals that it's still far less common than genital or rectal, that it is not associated with symptoms, and that it is rarely if ever transmitted to partners. There still are few if any cases of genital chlamydia documented to have been acquired by oral sex; the risk may not be zero, but it's certainly low. CDC's 2010 STD guidelines recommend against routine testing for oral chlamydia, and my understanding is that the 2015 guidelines (anticipated in the near future) will say the same thing.

lostlost, can you say more about your positive chlamydia test?

[gracefromHHP]

I don't often argue with HHH but there are plenty of studies out there now that show that chlamydia is indeed detected in the Oral area.

[Life360_Dave]

Below is a quote from Dr HHH on chlymdia and oral sex
"Chlamydia is a virtual impossibility in this situation.  You'll find lots of information on the web and elsewhere saying chlamydia is acquired by oral sex, but it's wrong -- even though such statements often come from apparently authoritative sources, such as public health departments.  But the research is clear that chlamydia rarely infects the throat and, when it does, rarely is transmitted by oral sex (if ever).  Why do so many information sources get it wrong?  In my opinion, it is because there are many legitimate parallels between gonorrhea and chlamydia (symptoms, potential complications, etc), which leads people to assume that all aspects are similar.  But they aren't.  Finally, ciprofloxacin would have given you substantial protection.  Cipro isn't a recommended chlamydia treatment, but it has substantial activity against chlamydia and probably would prevent an infection from taking hold. "

[gracefromHHP]

Chlamydia is also infectious in the oral area. I'm not sure where Life360 came up with his information at. If the health department hasn't already contacted your partner, you should be sure to tell them to get oral and genital testing for chlamydia done.

At this point, your herpes testing was done too early from the encounter to be accurate so you really can't ascertain anything from your results at this point.

so what do you do now? At this point, you should repeat your herpes igg blood testing 16 weeks post encounter. Be sure to post your follow up results along with the result range when you retest so we can better know which test you had done.


are you in the US?

grace

[Life360_Dave]

with no genital sores at the time the risk for oral hsv2 herpes would be close to zero.
With chlamydia would be zero as chlamydia is not know to be contacted in the throat only Gonoreha is.

[Lostlost]

Question. If partner gave me oral. No protection. And ingested. What are odds she would get HSV   And or chlamidia.

[Lostlost]

Thanks life. Will do. You do a great service.