Skip to content

    Announcements

    Attention All WebMD Community Members:

    These message boards are closed to posting. Please head on over to our new WebMD Message Boards to check out and participate in the great conversations taking place: https://messageboards.webmd.com/

    Actual Transmission Risk
    avatar
    An_262428 posted:
    I am going to preface this by saying that I have OCD which means that I tend to think, and overthink, things like crazy. Anyway, I am wanting to know what the actual transmission risk of this encounter is and whether I should be looking into doing the RNA test.

    I met a guy and we went out a couple of times. We ended up having sex. We started without a condom but after a minute or so put a condom on. He did not ejaculate inside. This happened on two separate occasions. Afterwards I began panicking and wondering if he might have had HIV and doesn't know it (he said that he doesn't have any diseases) and then passed it on to me. Is this something I should be legitimately concerned about or is this a product of my OCD and health anxiety? Should I be looking into an RNA test? The encounter happened 10 days ago.

    Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I am really freaking out.
     
    avatar
    georgiagail responded:
    While ejaculation did not take place, precum (pre-ejaculate), produced during arousal, can contain the virus in a positive individual.
    On the other hand, you do not know if this person is even HIV positive.
    In addition, in order for transmission to occur the virus has to actually be able to ENTER the body through a cut, tear, wound, damaged mucous membrane and not through simple contact with vaginal membranes during short term intercourse (i.e., the minute before a condom was put on).
    If you remain concerned, ask him to get tested.

    Gail
     
    avatar
    barelycoping16 replied to georgiagail's response:
    I decided to go ahead and get the RNA test done just to ease my mind. Otherwise, I will probably keep thinking about it. Tomorrow I will be 10 days post exposure. The company that offers the test says that at this point the test is 95-99% accurate? Would you agree with this or should I try to wait out a little longer before doing the test?
     
    avatar
    georgiagail replied to barelycoping16's response:
    The RNA test checks for the presence of the actual virus (as opposed to the more common ELISA screening test which checks for antibodies that the immune system begins to produce after transmission has taken place). Because it can take a while for the body to realize a foreign substance (the virus) has invaded it and thus begin cranking out antibodies, the viral load in a newly infected individual would tend to be very high, making this type of test result very accurate.
    I hope this helps.

    Gail


    Helpful Tips

    What steps to take if you test positive?Expert
    Hello community, Dan, Gail and myself often answer questions around the potential risk of different exposures for those of you who are ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    27 of 40 found this helpful

    Related Drug Reviews

    • Drug Name User Reviews

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.