What does unreactive result for HIV 1 and HIV 2 tests mean?
Question: I had a HIV test done recently. HIV 1/o/2 was 3.45 (indexed at 1), HIV 1 and HIV 2 were both unreactive. Nothing specified ELISA or Western Blot. I know HIV 1/o/2 is an ELISA test, so my first question is if the HIV 1 and HIV 2 test are also ELISA (I assume they are). Not sure why nothing was shown for Western Blot if this is the case. I went back in today when they said the results were inconclusive and had more drawn for an RNA test. I was exposed to a needle after an immunization. Just looking on clarity on the results before the RNA results. I know certain other antibodies can be reactive with HIV 1/o/2 and I know if it is reactive and WB is negative it is possible to be in the middle of seroconversion.
Any further explanation is greatly appreciated.
PCR test will be conclusive in your case.
As you mentioned test was indexed at 1.0.and your value was 3.45 mean the test is reactive. The ELISA test detects both p24 antigen and antibodies so it identifies a patient both in interval period and beyond. The sensitivity of ELISA test is high but it is the western blot whose helps to differentiate between true positive and true negative. In your case if the western blot tests are non reactive that means they did not find HIV 1 and HIV 2 antibodies. This is poor reporting if they did a EIA assay for these antibodies. If the western blot is inconclusive then it means it could both be positive or negative. In this situation we have to rely on HIV PCR for conclusive evidence. I too would suggest you to get PCR test and this will be the best guide.
So the HIV 1 and HIV 2 results, were they the Western blot results?
The ELISA test identifies both HIV 1 & 2 and other rare HIV forms. The Western blotting will identify only HIV 1 infection. I suppose they were. It is the lab and the reading doctor who sends the samples to such labs can only read such non standard reporting.
I was exposed only 6 days, 3.45 seems a little strange for so recent. The last time I could have possibly been exposed before that was 11 months ago, I would assume the western blot would have been positive if I was infected that long ago, are those two reasonings accurate?
I feel that my chances of being infected are extremely low given all of that, so would I be correct in assuming I'm not infected... Until the pcr rna results confirm one way or the other?
I would suggest you not to worry so much. When there is descepency between ELISA test and Western blotting test then Western blotting is considered conclusive. But in your case the Western blotting is inconclusive. In this situation we are left with no other option but to depend only on the results of HIV PCR test results. I understand your situation and stress but you have to have patience and get PCR test done soon to clear all the doubts. Till that I would suggest you to exercise, meditate and keep engrossed in routine activities.
It was inconclusive? I thought non-reactive meant it was negative?
You have mentioned yourself that they said results were inconclusive so they drew blood for PCR. So I assumed the same. Non reactive means negative. Kindly upload the reports so that I may give you best advice.
See "HIV 1 O 2 abs" means that the test was for antibodies to the common type of HIV (which is called HIV1 group M) and also for two much rarer types of HIV called HIV1 group O and HIV2. Your one antibody based test shows reactive and other shows negative. Seeing the reports it hints towards rare group O positive. But this is very rare and must be confirmed by PCR test. So there is discrepancy between two tests.
Thanks for the info. Is it possible to get a refund for the second $35 charge since the report was already uploaded?
I had seen the ELISA reports but I wanted to see the Western blotting report.