- Male
- 26 Years
- 20/02/2025
Hey, I'm a bit worried and need some advice. I took an HIV 1 and 2 ECLIA antibody test on the 63rd day after potential exposure, and it was done using the Roche e411 analyzer. I'm curious about how accurate the results might be at this stage. Should I trust the results, or do I need to retest later?
Answered by 1 Apollo Doctors
kk take
Dr. Mubarak Suggests...
Consult a Infectious Disease specialist
Answered 04/07/2025
0
0

Ask Apollo
AI powered Health Chatbot
At 63 days post-exposure, an HIV 1 and 2 ECLIA antibody test using the Roche e411 analyzer is highly reliable. This test detects antibodies and possibly antigens related to HIV, and by this time frame, most individuals who have contracted HIV will test positive. However, no test is 100% definitive immediately after exposure.
-
Accuracy at 63 days: The test is considered very accurate, with a high sensitivity and specificity, meaning false negatives are rare at this stage.
-
Trusting the results: If your test is negative, it is very reassuring, but some guidelines recommend a follow-up test at 3 months (90 days) post-exposure for complete confirmation.
-
Retesting: If your initial test is negative and you have no ongoing risk, a retest at 90 days can provide additional reassurance. If positive, confirmatory testing will be done by your healthcare provider.
-
Next steps: Discuss your results with a healthcare professional who can guide you on any further testing or preventive measures.
Overall, your test at 63 days is a strong indicator of your HIV status, but a follow-up test at 90 days is often advised for absolute certainty.
Answered 20/08/2025
0
0

More Infectious Disease Health Queries
View allHey, I recently had an HIV exposure and it's been about 22 days now. I went for an HIV proviral DNA test and it came back as non-reactive, which is a relief. But, I've started noticing some acne on my chest. Could this be an early symptom of HIV infection? I'm a bit worried and would love to hear your thoughts.
use medicine
Answered by 1 Apollo Doctors
I'm trying to understand the differences between the typhoid IgG IgM test and the Widal test. Can one of these tests detect typhoid better than the other? I'm not sure which test is more reliable or if there's any specific situation where one might be preferred. Could you explain this to me?
The Typhoid IgGIgM test is a serological test that detects the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies against Salmonella Typhi in the blood, indicating acute or past typhoid infection, respectively; this test is more sensitive and specific than the traditional Widal test, which detects agglutinating antibodies, and can be used as a replacement or complementary test, especially in the early stages of infection or in immunocompromised patients; both tests can detect typhoid, but the Typhoid IgGIgM test is preferred due to its higher accuracy and ability to distinguish between acute and past infections.
Answered by 1 Apollo Doctors
I'm looking at my widal test results and I'm a bit worried. The values are showing Salmonella Typhi O Antigen at 140 and Salmonella Typhi H Antigen also at 140. Salmonella Paratyphi AH and BH Antigens are both at 120. Does this mean the test is negative? And if so, does that rule out typhoid completely or is there still a chance it could develop later?
negative or low-level result indicating no active typhoid infection at this time
Answered by 1 Apollo Doctors
Disclaimer: Answers on Apollo 247 are not intended to replace your doctor advice. Always seek help of a professional doctor in case of an medical emergency or ailment.





