[Question #11195] Antivirals
16 months ago
|
Had a blood test today. Per my Dr.: Iyou think you were exposed take the meds for herpes and any other exposure. The prophylactic is good. If you were exposed and took acyclovir then the IgG would be negative. That is what you want not herpes. You never had the lesions which means you never caught herpes. That is good. And the IgG will always be negative.
Sounds like he is misinformed but I’m wondering what the pros/cons of taking are.
If it is a new infection I want to be proactive but sounds like it will bring uncertainty in results.
If it was a new infection 13 days ago, what is the benefit of taking it? How likely will taking it affect test results.
How long after meds is IgG trustworthy?
After my western blot 12 years ago you told me you have patients with my exact symptoms and some with positive swab that never have positive IgG so I could consider daily PCR swabbing. Im just wondering how reliable that western blot was if I was on meds
16 months ago
|
I can’t figure out how to edit the question but what I’m asking is what are the downsides of not taking antivirals immediately if it is a new infection, I have a lot of discomfort. I realize if I take it. Testing can’t be trusted ? Or at least for a longer period? But if it is an initial infection will I regret not taking it
![]() |
Terri Warren, RN, Nurse Practitioner
16 months ago
|
You need to decide on a clinician to trust and follow those instructions. I've told you what I think. Antivirals, taken now, will not impact if the virus can establish latency in your body. It is way too late. And if you have new herpes and don't take medication, why would you regret it? What would be the downside?
I don't believe that I ever told you that I had patients with your exact symptoms who were positive on a swab and test but never positive on IgG. I have had 10 patients in my career who were swab test positive from herpes lesions but were negative on the western blot. Your timing on your previous blot was appropriate - you were off meds long enough for accuracy. You should trust the results.
This is really all I have to say about this - we've gone around and around with the same questions and my answers remain the same.
Terri
---
16 months ago
|
Okay, thanks. Sorry, its difficult when you get very different advice, but you are specialized in this so I'll avoid the antivirals. Yesterday I got an IgG for type 1 and 2. I did not get IgM as you said to avoid it. The IgG came back negative.
This is 13 days post exposure.
I know that's not enough, however, can that indicate conclusively that the encounter from 12. years ago was not Herpes? My doctor claims that because he gave me Acyclovir 2 weeks after exposure (while I had some sort of sores that he did not swab because he said did not look like herpes) that we stopped the virus from becoming latent. My understanding is you either don't have it or you have it forever. But he is saying, it will never show up on an IgG because we took that antivirals and "cured it" and even if I did contract it and the IgG would have eventually became positive if I kept testing, it could go down over time, so 12 years is "too late" to test in a sense. Would I always test positive for it forever? Does any of that make sense?
And if I never got it and this is a new exposure, at what point can I conclusively test to put this to rest? 6 weeks? 12 weeks?
I know that's not enough, however, can that indicate conclusively that the encounter from 12. years ago was not Herpes? My doctor claims that because he gave me Acyclovir 2 weeks after exposure (while I had some sort of sores that he did not swab because he said did not look like herpes) that we stopped the virus from becoming latent. My understanding is you either don't have it or you have it forever. But he is saying, it will never show up on an IgG because we took that antivirals and "cured it" and even if I did contract it and the IgG would have eventually became positive if I kept testing, it could go down over time, so 12 years is "too late" to test in a sense. Would I always test positive for it forever? Does any of that make sense?
And if I never got it and this is a new exposure, at what point can I conclusively test to put this to rest? 6 weeks? 12 weeks?
![]() |
Terri Warren, RN, Nurse Practitioner
16 months ago
|
If you had acquired HSV 12 years ago, the antivirals might have postponed antibody development, but you eventually would have made it. That's why we waited 13 weeks off meds to do the blot. You doctor is incorrect
Terri
---