[Question #4950] HIV test
 |
78 months ago
|
Good afternoon, I used to read your stuff in medhelp a lot and glad I found you on here. I have a question regarding a test I took 8 years ago. It was the home access collection kit where you put your blood on the paper and send it in. I tested negeative however I took the test with a friend and after he was finished with his test he was helping me get the blood out of my finger because I was having trouble and a drop of his blood got in my paper but it was mostly my blood. My question is did this ruin my test? My exposure was unprotected baginal sex with the same guy in numerous occasions. It was about. 2 month relationship ship. Thank you
 |
H. Hunter Handsfield, MD
78 months ago
|
Welcome to our newer forum. Thanks for being a long time "customer" and your confidence in our services.
The slight difficulty you had in getting your blood onto the paper would not have any effect on reliability of the test result. If I understand, you're also concerned that if some of your partner's blood got mixed with yours, it would screw up the test. That could happen, but only if one of you had HIV. If a combined blood specimen is negative, then neither person is positive. In fact, this method is used to increased test efficiency in some circumstances. In testing for HIV in blood donors, when fewer than one person in a thousand is likely to have HIV, often the specimens for 20 or more donors are combined. If the result is negative, all 20 persons are free of HIV. If the pooled result is positive, then each person is tested individually to learn who produced the positive pooled result. But negative is negative for everyone.
Since both you and your partner had negative results, you know that neither of you was infected and could not pass HIV to one another.
I hope this information is helpful. Let me know if anything isn't clear.
HHH, MD
--- |
78 months ago
|
So what you are saying is that if one of us were positive and our blood got mixed together in the paper it wouldn’t have gave me a negative result? Also I don’t know if you are familiar with home access because it is not in the market. I believe it was a second generation test which I’m not really sure what that means and I have not had any exposures since then. It also says it only tests for hiv 1 and not 2 so I took 3 oraquick tests last week and were all negative. My exposure was 8 years ago and I had a swollen lymph node on neck so I was worried. Thank you doctor
|
H. Hunter Handsfield, MD
78 months ago
|
You must not have understood my reply above. As I said, if one of you were infected, mixing the blood would give a positive result, not negative. Any generation of HIV test would do the same.
HIV never would cause only a single enlerged lymph node as the only symptom. Finally, your more recent Oraquick tests confirm you don't have HIV. (But why three Oraquick tests?? One is all you needed.)
---
I am very familiar with the Home Access test. I was a consultant with Home Access when the test was in development, but I never had the opportunity to actually do the test or watch someone collecting his or her specimen. You're right it is no longer on the market.
------
|
78 months ago
|
Would you say the home access test was an accurate test since it’s a home test? I was skeptical when I saw it was not in the market anymore and was wondering why. How does an hiv test detect hiv on a piece of paper of dried blood and is there anything else that could have made the test inaccurate other than if I were to test beforr window period which I did not. Also do the tests I took detect all the subtypes of hiv? I see a lot of people in the forums talking about subtypes and it was confusing me. I did 3 oraquick tests because I read they are only 91% accurate in detecting a positive result so I thought maybe it would increase accuracy. My health insurance and financial situation is tough right now and I don’t live by any clinics so the home tests were more accessible. Thank you for your answers. I know this is my last question so if I come up with something else I will pay for another question. Have a wonderful weekend
|
H. Hunter Handsfield, MD
78 months ago
|
The Home Access test is no longer available because of newer, better technology, especially by other rapid tests with immediate results (like Oraquick), without the need to mail in a test for results more than a week later. It no longer was profitable. It was a good test, however; negative results were highly reliable if done more than 3 months after the last possible exposure to HIV.
---
Oraquick does a lot better than the official figure of only 91%. It detects 98-99% of infections if testing is done 3+ months after exposure.
You describe a very low risk sexual lifestyle. Very, very few women with sexual histories like yours ever get HIV. I'm very confident your tests are reliable and that you do not have HIV. But if you would like a truly 100% reliable test, when you can afford testing either online or through a doctor's office or clinic, as for an antigen-antibody test (also called "duo", "combo", or 4th generation test). These tests never miss anyone with HIV.
As you apparently know, each question incloudes two follow-up comments and replies and so ends this thread. I suggest you not post another question along these lines. It is unlikely there is any additional information you can provide that would change our advice about the near zero likelihood you have HIV and about HIV testing. And you can read hundreds of other threads about HIV testing and the reliability of various kinds of tests available. No need to spend another $25.00 on information you can easily find on the forum for free.
I hope the discussion has been helpful. Best wishes.