KARYPM%SJUVM.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Paul M. Karagianis) (04/23/91)
seen a satisfactory response in the six months I've been following this
group so I guess it's time to ask it again. What would be a realistic
estimate of the time between HIV infection and having anti-bodies show
up in typical (Elisa) testing? Last weeks TIME had a report of a study
that tracked both virus and antibody levels in patients that the
researchers could make a strong case for having been recently infected.
Maximum antibody levels (judging from a simple graphic) appeared to
occur around 2 months after infection. I also recall the CDC using >90
days in studies of needlesticks. The NYC Department of Health suggests
6 months.
"Everybody" (by which I mean I see it echoed in the standard news
media) seems to know that "it can take over a year" to develop
antibodies; I'm wondering how they know this. There seems to be a
boogeyman quality to this disease in that the same people who worry the
about the race being obliterated by HIV infected mosquitos, dentists
and toilet seats seem to perpetuate anecdotal stories of victims who
didn't test positive for extended periods after the infection. I also
speculate that there is a second problem in that we tend to correlate
guilt with date of transgression. i.e. I'm more culpable for what I did
yesterday that what I did umpteen months/years ago when "I was younger",
or "less informed" or "before I found Christ (and/or You)".cole@unix.sri.com (Susan Cole) (04/23/91)
There was a study out of USC a couple of years ago that generated a lot
of publicity about how some of the participants had taken as long as
three years to become HIV-positive. Up to this I had always heard "six
months" as the length of time for virtually anybody to show
antibodies. I asked a person who works at an AIDS testing clinic about
this study and he said that the six-month period is correct, and that
in the USC study the participants had continued to participate in unsafe
sex while the study was going on. Can anyone verify this? If true, it
seems that publicizing the "three-year seroconversion period" story was
very irresponsible and bound to lead to a great deal of confusion (like
mine).
--
cole@unix.sri.com
{hplabs,amdahl,rutgers}!sri-unix!colecthorne@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr22.211533.1693@cs.ucla.edu> KARYPM%SJUVM.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Paul M. Karagianis) writes: >seen a satisfactory response in the six months I've been following this >group so I guess it's time to ask it again. What would be a realistic >estimate of the time between HIV infection and having anti-bodies show >up in typical (Elisa) testing? Last weeks TIME had a report of a study >that tracked both virus and antibody levels in patients that the >researchers could make a strong case for having been recently infected. >Maximum antibody levels (judging from a simple graphic) appeared to >occur around 2 months after infection. I also recall the CDC using >90 >days in studies of needlesticks. The NYC Department of Health suggests >6 months. > It's been my theory for quite some time that "no one" really knows. Early on (when the test first became available) it was used for instances where the people had some reason to think they were infected--and also by blood collection agencies to check the "purity" of blood. People who had some reason to think they were infected often showed up positive within a few weeks of their last exposure. The first case of someone having a longer time to seroconvert involved a person who had been giving blood. The first time--the blood was HIV anti-body negative--was accepted--and given to someone. The next time-- several months later--tlhe blood was HIV anti-body positive--not accepted. Then the blood collector checked with the person who had gotten the earlier blood--and they were now HIV anti-body positive. Thus, blood that had tested HIV negative--was given to someone--who later tested HIV positive. The seroconversion was (I think) about three or four months. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think the testing people really know how long one could be HIV positive and still test negative because that isn't being tested for. The test that is easy and available is for HIV anti-bodies-- not for HIV virus--so the time of sero conversion is not likely to be known accurately for a long time. Also, consider the fact that in order to do "regular" research on this--you could inject virus into subjects--and measure how long it would take to sero-convert. Of course a high percentage of the subjects would contract AIDS and die. Charlie
Richard.Dewald@p0.f70.n382.z1.fidonet.org (Richard Dewald) (05/10/91)
The question is difficult to answer definitvely because we still don't know
the exact dynamics of infection. Does it require multiple exposures? Does it
require cofactors such as mycoplasmas? Is there a local infection first that
develops into a systemic infection? How long does that take? Does the level
of wellness at the exposure effect the time to seroconversion?
The best answer we have is six months. In the college sex-ed program, we
suggest that a couple get an intial ELISA, practice safe sex for six months,
and then get an additional ELISA at that time. If they are both negative,
then they can move on to conception or whatever. That is all contingent on
certainty of fidelity.
In other situations where one partner was known to be HIV+ after unprotected
sex with a significant other, I have seen a sugestion of an ELISA at six
months and then again at a year.
I know that's not very satisfying. Hopefully, as our knowledge grows we will
have better answers.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!382!70.0!Richard.Dewald
Internet: Richard.Dewald@p0.f70.n382.z1.fidonet.org