|HIV NAT, Antigen Testing
Dec 8, 2002
I have heard that NAT testing and Antigen testing is the most accurate testing yet to test for HIV infection before antibodies are even formed and these tests can detect HIV within 2 weeks after an exposure. If you were tested with these 2 tests at 70 days and also the standard HIV test after a possible exposure, and all were negative, is it safe to say that the NAT or Antigen test would have detected any traces of the virus since they are used to detect the virus sooner.
Thank You for answering this.
| Response from Mr. Kull
Antibody assays (ELISA/EIA, Western Blot) are the most reliable methods for screening for HIV infection. Most people will develop a detectable level of antibodies within the first month of infection, but tests are not considered accurate until three months have elapsed.
Other testing methods should only be used if your exposure was of significant risk (unprotected anal or vaginal sex with an HIV infected partner) and/or to diagnose acute infection (as assessed by a medical professional). See PCR or ELISA.
It is highly unlikely that you would be infected if all of these tests came back negative at 70 days.
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.