|
|
For anyone worried about false negative results.
#46466 - 12/04/02 01:59 PM
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
PERT assay for plasma RNA HIV-1
A new assay, called the product-enhanced reverse transcriptase (PERT) assay, provides a more accurate method of detecting plasma RNA HIV-1 compared with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Dr. Jurg Boni and colleagues at the University of Zurich used the PERT assay to measure particle-associated reverse transcriptase activity in 30 plasma samples from HIV-1-positive patients and in 160 samples from healthy blood donors. All the samples from the HIV-1 positive patients showed reverse transcriptase activity, and levels significantly correlated with viral RNA concentrations ranging from 553-417,000 particles per milliliter. In HIV-1 low titer performance and seroconversion panels, the PERT assay detected more positives than PCR for viral RNA. The PERT assay can detect less than 100 HIV-1 particles per milliliter and because the PERT assay is not influenced by sequence variation, all conceivable variants of HIV-1 can be detected. The PERT assay may be useful for investigation of other disorders thought to involve retroviruses, such as some neoplastic and autoimmune diseases, Dr. Boni said. The PERT assay may also be useful for testing of the safety of cell-free biological products such as fresh plasma, blood coagulation factors or vaccines, and for screening of transmissible retroviruses prior to transplantation and transfusion
Post Extras:
|
|
gregg629
|
|
Guardian
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/16/01
|
|
Posts: 438
|
|
Loc: Boston
|
|
|
John, Over all this is great and exciting that tests are getting better. See my post above for my full thoughts, but even what you posted does not say that this holds a 100% guarantee. What it says is "provides a more accurate method of detecting plasma RNA HIV-1 compared with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay" More accurate, means that there can still be mistakes.
HOWEVER false negative results are not the norm, they are the exception and have lots of factors.
Please don't try to make people think that they can't trust their test results and can only trust this new and possibly not available test.
Gregg
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
DEAR GREGG,If you bothered to read johns post,without just chatting on and on,he does not recomend this test,BUT is sharing news about new and exciting tests.this test IS better because,as the article says it detects virus regardless of type.also please dont post so much,as you add nothing new.at least john is trying to push the envelope for people whom do not belive their test results for whatever reason.john is a clever guy,and he knows more about hiv than you,i can promise you that!,whenever he trys to help,people like you jump on him.WHAT ARE YOU DOING?..........Dave.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
my 2 cents:
* however: the professor in zürich whose lab performs the test will tell you "if you are negative by antibodies at 6 months", you will not need this test, because you are not infected.
* the specifity of PERT is 100% but the sensitivity is much lower than in good PCRs. So, just as Gregg argued, i some doe s not trust tests, he will also have troubles to trust this test.
but i totall agree with John, news needs to be shared. Period.
joe
Post Extras:
|
|
0 registered and 50 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: TheBody, bogart, crabman, riverprincess, kicker
|
Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1553
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3
| |
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
