Oral Rapid Test

[tkpickles]

I typically am very careful, but messed up a few months ago. I had unprotected insertive anal sex approx on April 10.

About a month later (May 16-19) I got very ill (diarrhea, fever, etc). I went to a clinic and had an oral rapid test done and it came back non-reactive. Roughly right around the 6 week mark.

A week ago I went back for a second test (10 weeks) and the test was non-reactive.

I'm still very nervous because I don't understand exactly when antibodies form. If the illness I went though was in fact part of the acute phase, is a month a sufficient amount of time for the antibodies to form?

Also, and this one is a bit irrational I suppose. But I read an article, that I can no longer find the link for, that mentioned some people with a confirmed hiv status tested negative time and time again with the oral rapid tests. I've only ever had oral rapid tests done and I was wondering if I should go have a different kind done. Do you think it's safe to rely only on rapid tests for years?

Thank you in advance to anyone that responds. I'm very concerrned.

[Jeff G]

The average time to seroconversion is 22 days. Most who are infected will test positive by 6 weeks. For various reasons a small number will take longer and that is why we follow the CDC recommendation to test at 3 months for a conclusive negative result.

The oraquick test is reliable and you can count on the results as so . Its unlikely that the test you will take at 3 months will change at this point but you will need to have that 3 month test to confirm the last one at 10 weeks .

[tkpickles]

I've had several high-risk encounters in the past and luckily I've recently tested negative at 13 weeks (which I've been told is conclusive).

I have been (and will continue) to use condoms with my partners. I understand my behavior before was risky and no ones fault but my own.

My question is this... All of the tests I've taken in the past year have all been oral rapid tests (done at a clinic). In the future they will likely be my only method of testing as that's what the clinics here test with. I understand they are accurate when performed correctly and when administered outside of the window period. But are there any known cases where someone has/had HIV but that particular test couldn't detect it? As in another type of test could?  Should I mix it up periodically and pay for blood work or can I rely solely on these oral rapid tests?

I'd hate to possibly have it and not have it detected bc that test didnt work for my body for some reason.

[Jeff G]

Hi TK . Please post all of your questions and thoughts in this thread only . If you have trouble finding your thread go to your profile and select show own post and it will take you here .

The oral rapid test is an accurate screening tool for HIV and when its used properly you can count on the results . You are HIV negative .   

[tkpickles]

Thank you so much for both of your prompt replies, Jeff. I really do appreciate it!

I know numerous replies are annoying, but this will be my last, I promise :-P

I don't so much have doubt about the particular test per se, rather it being the only testing method I do. I don't see myself in the foreseeable future going to someplace that doesn't offer just the oral fluid test. If that were to be the only test I do, is that okay...as in there's no medical condition that could prevent that test from working? Is it advisable to sometimes get another form of test done for certainty?

[jkinatl2]

Honestly? The only reason I would opt for a blood draw instead of an orel test is if the oral test came back indeterminate or positive.

All tests are skewed. Based on the severity of HIV, the antibody tests are skewed towards sensitivity, rather than specificity. Meaning, they will offer a false positive (which usually shows as indeterminate or "faintly positive") rather than a false negative, assuming you are testing at the appropriate window.