Thông tin về xét nghiệm sau 6 tuần có thể yên tâm (Dr. HHH, MD)

[Tuanmecsedec]

Phần nguyên văn chúng nó tranh luận.

Carnage of the past 12/25/2005 C1	smurfy	an antigen/antibody test at 6 weeks is almost 100percent reliable. there was a study done in 1997 comparing different hiv tests and how fast they picked up positive results. p24 tests almost always show up within 2-3weeks of being infected and the antibody shows around 7 days after the p24 shows. You are reliably negative but if you must reassure yourself, get a test at 12 weeks so you can let the stress go.
Willl 12/25/2005 C2	smurfy	There is research available (that I have found myself) that substantiates a shorter window time for modern tests. Even an antibody test at 4 weeks should be pretty highly reliable. The only circumstances I think may delay a 6 week window time would be for those who: 1) Have a pre-existing immune system disorder 2) An induced immune deficit from for example, going through chemotherapy 3) Or if the person had been undergoing heavy antiviral treatment But Dr. H may say differently about this.
morestup 12/25/2005 C3	smurfy	check my thread: http://www.medhelp.org/f...s/STD/messages/2169.html I agree you with you that there still needs to be a general consensus from all official health organisations as to clarify this 6 week, 3 month and 6 month. But the main investigation done by CDC USA is that most people will have positive antibodies within 4 weeks. Thus the 6 week mark is 95% accurate according to Doc HHH. As I have not received a clear answer from Doc HHH and other sources all say 3 months, I will test again in 3 weeks which will make it the 3 month for me. Lets hope the Doc is right in saying 6 weeks is almost 100% and not get a scare when we do the 3 month test. In the meantime, take your 6 week negative as conclusive. Best Wishes
smurfy 12/25/2005 C4		Hello to all of you, is there a link to the source of the research ? can i see it somewhere in the internet ? well, there must be a reason why all the sources here in europe are talking about the numbers i have posted before. Doc. HHH was the FIRST one who says that a six week test should be okay nearly 100% !
morestup 12/25/2005 C5	Smurfy	Smurfy I have to agree with you. Doc HHH has to clarify the question of the 6 week mark once and for all. All the other sources indicate 3 and/or 6 months. My Doc said 8 weeks is a reliable indicator. And according to your data, my 9 week negative result is more than 90% accurate. I think it may be the fact that it depends on whether your case is low risk or high risk. I have seen on other threads that if it is low risk then 6 weeks is sufficient. What is low risk - oral sex. High risk - unprotected vaginal or anal sex. But for some oral sex cases raised on this forum where the other partner was infected, the Doc said to have a further test at 3 months. but with me he said 6 weeks was conclusive, despite knowing i had unprotected insertive oral sex with a two high risk females. To be honest......i am also confused. Doc, Merry Christmas to you. Would appreciate a clarification on this Please.
strangeworld 12/25/2005 C6	morestup	morestup--- Do you still have those symptoms ??? My stomach makes lot of noises and some days i get some slight calf pain??? I am going to test in 3 weeks with you. Confused and scared...i have insertive oral with a high risk female for not more than 20 seconds... Happy Holidays :-)
morestup 12/25/2005 C7	Strangeworld	Hi Strangeworld Merry Christmas to you too. Hope you have had a good day. My symptoms in my stomach have receded somewhat but not completely. However last two days I feel my lymph nodes a little more and I feel more tired. But I guess that at 9 weeks being negative is 95% approx accurate. I cannot wait to get to 13 weeks and put this all behind me. And I guess you too as well. So that we can just get on with our lives once and for all and learn from this torturing experience. I have never felt worse in my entire life. I still check for rashes and other symptoms, but I'm on the forum to check recent questions and thanks to Smurfy I am waiting for Doc HHH's reply. God Bless
morestup 12/25/2005 C8	Smurfy	Hey Smurfy You wanted evidence? Below is the source from which Will posted: Willl 12/16/2005 C3 . Also like has been said before on this forum the tests are better now. I found this document from the CDC given the average window of 25 days (CI 9-41 days), and this was printed back in 1996. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/RR/RR4502.pdf
smurfy 12/26/2005 C9	Dr. HHH	Hello Dr. HHH, many thanks for your very very interesting answer ! there is one question left for me: what do you think is an 'high risk' and what is a 'low risk' ?? My case is the following: i had sex with a girl who is ....i would say 'very openend' for having sex with many men... The condome we used broke at the end. I was in her vagina for about 30-60 seconds and i had my ejaculation (is this the right english word ???) in her vagina. She has an negativ hiv-test from october. But i am worried she got infected the last 4 month before our 'condom break' (in November). She promissed me that she never had unprotected sex, only with her ex-husband (about 2 month ago). And i know she is drinking a lot sometimes.........so i am worried she has herself NOT under control. what do you think ? is this HIGH or LOW risk in your opinion ? what does my negative 4th generation antibody/antigen test after 6 weeks mean to ME ??
Forum-M.D.-HHH 12/27/2005 C10	smurfy	First, there is almost no such thing as high risk vaginal intercourse, unless one partner is known to be HIV infected. Perhaps more important, for sexual exposure to HIV, it makes little sense to describe any particular exposure as high or low risk. The risk comes from patterns of behavior. For example, a pattern of repeated unprotected anal sex among popuulations with high prevalence of HIV (e.g., gay men) is very high risk, even though the risk for any particular exposure actually is very low. Vaginal sex in industrialized countries, even without condoms: pretty low risk. With condoms regularly? Extremely low risk. Unprotected orral sex? Trivial risk. And so on. HHH, MD
smurfy 12/27/2005 C11	Dr. HHH	Hello Doctor HHH, thanks again for your professional answer. For me, there is one question left: can i sleep well with my 6-week 4th generation test (antibody/antigen) being negative in my case (condom broken as described in my last post) ? I am still a little bit worried, maybe you understand this, because one more doctor told a fried of mine 2 days ago that 6 weeks are ONLY 80% reliable. Why is this 80%-number in the minds of european doctors ???
joeworried 12/29/2005 C12	smurfy	The reason all the doctors are giving you the same information is because they're all reading from the same script. There are many studies you can read on the Internet if you go to a standard search engine like google. Everything I've read supports a much higher percentage than 80% at 6 weeks. To complete the picture on the information provided by carnageofthepast, a first generation test will detect HIV antibodies about a week later than a third generation test, and a second generation test will detect the antibodies a few days earlier than a first generation test. The state of New York provides HIV/AIDS information in a form of 100 questions and answers. In the response to question 39, it states "With the HIV antibody tests used in New York State, virtually all people who are infected will test positive within one month of being infected. Most people will test positive even sooner." You can draw your own conclusions, but if "virtually all" test positive at 1 month, the percentage testing positive at 6 weeks has to be much greater than 80%. As an FYI, I tested negative at 8.5 weeks after a possible exposure using a second generation test (by LabCorp).