Rapid HIV Test

[tednlou2]

Do we have a Rapid Home HIV Test yet?  Many of us know about the rapid HIV tests that can give a result in as little as 20 minutes.  Are these only available in medical offices?  When I looked up home tests, all I could find were tests that you take and mail in and rapid home tests are not approved so far.  Did I miss anything?

If there are tests that can give an accurate result in 20 minutes, it would seem like having them for home use could save thousands from infection possibly.  If ya brought someone home, you could both do the test.  I know it isn't romantic, but better than getting infected.  Is it a matter of technology and cost?  Do they think if you had a home test that it would give people a false sense of security and not use condoms?

If it is a matter of needing sophisticated technology to interpret the test, then I can see why they aren't available for home use.  When groups use those mouth swabs to test people quickly, I thought they found out the results right away.  If there isn't a rapid home test yet, I'm really surprised that hasn't been done yet or more focus on coming up with one.  When researching, I found many talking about HIV not showing up during the window period and questions about counseling if it were poz.  Again, the benefits outweigh those things.       

[RapidRod]

There are no home rapid tests.

[Matty the Damned]

I have a problem with HIV home testing of any kind.

There are considerations other than just the result. Providing support for those who've just received a positive result, appropriate interventions for those who have received a negative result yet have patterns of sexual or other behaviours which could still lead to infection and interpretation of indeterminate results.

Then there is the potential for people to mishandle the actual testing kit and potentially invalidate the results.

HIV testing is best carried out by an appropriately qualified health care worker in a clinical setting.

MtD

[veritas]

I believe there are rapid tests available, but should be followed up with another confirming test.

http://www.oral-aids-test.com/home-test-kits/std-tests/rapid-hiv-blood-test

v

[RapidRod]

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/hivhometestkits/ucm126460.htm

Only one HIV home collection test system is approved by FDA and legally sold in the United States. This test, sold as either "The Home Access HIV-1 Test System" or "The Home Access Express HIV-1 Test System" is manufactured by Home Access Health Corporation and allows blood samples to be taken at home, which people then send to a laboratory for testing. This test system may be purchased on the Internet.  However, there are many non-FDA approved tests kits illegally marketed over the Internet and in newspaper and magazine advertisements.

[emeraldize]

What really surprises me is that if you follow Veritas' link, and scroll down, there are links to products other consumers have purchased and OraQuick is shown. http://www.oral-aids-test.com/home-test-kits/std-tests/oraquick  I thought the product was only available to medical institutions/offices and testing agencies. I'm going to inquire about this.

[RapidRod]

http://www.orasure.com/products-infectious/products-infectious.asp

[Hellraiser]

When I was pulled into the health department one of the things they mentioned was an oral HIV test being used by non professionals.  I can't quite remember if he said it was available or would be soon, but trust that orasure tests would be a fantastic way of sero sorting your sexual partners.  I'm neutral on the subject, but I figure the more people who know their status the better.

[wtfimpoz]

When I was pulled into the health department one of the things they mentioned was an oral HIV test being used by non professionals.  I can't quite remember if he said it was available or would be soon, but trust that orasure tests would be a fantastic way of sero sorting your sexual partners.  I'm neutral on the subject, but I figure the more people who know their status the better.

Mixed bag there.  Good to help people stay negative, bad for those who think they're neg who turn up poz.  Personaly, I think the only thing worse than being told by a detached customer service rep for thehome access corp would be a histrionic trick trying to serosort and probably accusing you of all sorts of nefarious behavior. 

[Ann]

I believe there are rapid tests available, but should be followed up with another confirming test.

http://www.oral-aids-test.com/home-test-kits/std-tests/rapid-hiv-blood-test

We've had people in the Am I Infected forum who have used those tests and they often get false positive results. Way to freak people out!

What really surprises me is that if you follow Veritas' link, and scroll down, there are links to products other consumers have purchased and OraQuick is shown. http://www.oral-aids-test.com/home-test-kits/std-tests/oraquick  I thought the product was only available to medical institutions/offices and testing agencies. I'm going to inquire about this.

I'm pretty sure offering this as a home test is illegal in the States, as is any other hiv test the person interprets themselves in the home.

If there are tests that can give an accurate result in 20 minutes, it would seem like having them for home use could save thousands from infection possibly.  If ya brought someone home, you could both do the test.  I know it isn't romantic, but better than getting infected.  Is it a matter of technology and cost?  Do they think if you had a home test that it would give people a false sense of security and not use condoms?

This is incredibly dangerous as many people do not understand the window period. You could have someone who was infected a week or two before you used the test on them. While they wouldn't have enough antibodies yet to test positive, they'd likely have a VL in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. Good way to nearly guarantee infection, particularly if you're bottom and they're top and you bareback to ejaculation.

[WillyWump]

would be a histrionic trick trying to serosort. 

Horrid visions of me in high heels and a teddy with sex toys in my hand in a tricks bedroom jsut prior to the dirty deed and him walking out waving a swab in his hand telling me Im HIV+.

-W

[wtfimpoz]

Horrid visions of me in high heels and a teddy with sex toys in my hand in a tricks bedroom jsut prior to the dirty deed and him walking out waving a swab in his hand telling me Im HIV+.

-W

Would it even be him telling you, or just throwing you out?  I don't have any experience with disclosure yet (no sex with others post poz diagnosis), but I don't imagine that the typical reaction is "thats ok, well just be safe".  And what a horrible, horrible way to find out.  If there were any testing scenario likely to inspire suicide, getting thrown out of someone's apartment while still drunk is probably high on the list. 

[Hellraiser]

Would it even be him telling you, or just throwing you out?  I don't have any experience with disclosure yet (no sex with others post poz diagnosis), but I don't imagine that the typical reaction is "thats ok, well just be safe".  And what a horrible, horrible way to find out.  If there were any testing scenario likely to inspire suicide, getting thrown out of someone's apartment while still drunk is probably high on the list. 

Just so you know most gay men are fine with having positive sexual partners, at least in my experience.  Of course, I'm very upfront about it and I could imagine waiting until the last possible moment when the orasure test is whipped out probably wouldn't work in your favor.  You'd be surprised though most people understand that by using a condom you're most likely not going to get infected barring some extreme condom failure.

[wtfimpoz]

Just so you know most gay men are fine with having positive sexual partners, at least in my experience.  Of course, I'm very upfront about it and I could imagine waiting until the last possible moment when the orasure test is whipped out probably wouldn't work in your favor.  You'd be surprised though most people understand that by using a condom you're most likely not going to get infected barring some extreme condom failure.

Obviously I wouldn't hide my status from anyone, and I don't really care about the emotional consequences for those who are "caught".  My concern was for those who don'tknow they're poz, not those who conceal their status for fear of rejection.

[bocker3]

We've had people in the Am I Infected forum who have used those tests and they often get false positive results. Way to freak people out!

A very good point (as would be expected from our Ann.....).  Screening tests are DESIGNED to err on the side of a false positive over a false negative -- that is why confirmatory tests are needed to confirm a positive.  Having these screening tests available at home will cause, at best, many sleepless nights for many folks.

Mike

[tednlou2]

I see the concerns about counseling if you tested poz and a partner testing neg when they are actually poz.  However, on the mail-in home tests, you don't have a counselor there when you get the results.  If someone is going to bareback regardless, it just seems like a rapid home test could prevent infections with people who's HIV would show up.     

Of course, I was talking about having a test that is just as accurate as anything you would take at the doc.  Obviously, if you're in the window period, it wouldn't show up at home or the office.  This made me think about how the Red Cross tests blood.  When there is some huge event like a major car wreck or major shooting at a workplace or school, they often ask for people to donate blood for those victims saying they have run out.  If some of those people were in the window period, I assume they just gave out the blood after running a rapid test and hoped it would remain neg.

I can see the cons, but the pros seem to outweigh those to me.  By the way, I got to thinking about all this after hearing someone at the doc office saying he wished he had a home test when he was dating this guy who he says infected him.       

[Hellraiser]

The Red Cross on HIV testing blood donations...

"For example, the HIV  antibody test will not detect a recently infected donor, so some blood banks use a p24 antigen or HIV nucleic acid test in addition to the basic antibody test to detect infected donors during that period."

[Rev. Moon]

Please, some queens have a hard time telling their trick to slip on a condom, and yet we would expect them to poke their finger for a blood sample in the heat of the moment?  Yeah, sure.

[Hellraiser]

Please, some queens have a hard time telling their trick to slip on a condom, and yet we would expect them to poke their finger for a blood sample in the heat of the moment?  Yeah, sure.

These are the oral tests, but I completely agree with you.

[Rev. Moon]

These are the oral tests, but I completely agree with you.

Ah, that's right, oral (one of our favorite words round here).  Their mouths would be ready to be wide open at that point anyway.  "Here, lick on this baby before you can suck on that."  Meh.

[veritas]

Ann,

You said: "We've had people in the Am I Infected forum who have used those tests and they often get false positive results. Way to freak people out!".

That may be true, however, the silver lining in the original "freak" is that they proceed to get another more accurate test which verifies or negates the results. They know for sure. If poz, they can start the process. If negative, they celebrate and maybe think twice before repeating any unsafe practice. I don't believe it's all bad.

v

[bocker3]

I can see the cons, but the pros seem to outweigh those to me.  By the way, I got to thinking about all this after hearing someone at the doc office saying he wished he had a home test when he was dating this guy who he says infected him.       

Wouldn't it just be so much easier (not to mention cheaper) to simply insist on a using a condom?  If and when they get to a point of being exclusive (and willing to make the assumption that they will BOTH be exclusive) they could go get tested.

It's is absurd to think that the average trick or even average Joe that you are dating is going to consent to a home test -- especially since you'll probably ask him to take it each and every time you have sex, right?  Or.....  will folks take it once and assume that negative means negative now and forever???

This is all fantasy

[bocker3]

Ann,

You said: "We've had people in the Am I Infected forum who have used those tests and they often get false positive results. Way to freak people out!".

That may be true, however, the silver lining in the original "freak" is that they proceed to get another more accurate test which verifies or negates the results. They know for sure. If poz, they can start the process. If negative, they celebrate and maybe think twice before repeating any unsafe practice. I don't believe it's all bad.

v

Are you kidding?  you have people today who get tested, receive a negative result but are convinced it was wrong and that they really were infected.  Now you will give them a Positive result and a negative result...  OMG, they will continue to freak out because the average person will not grasp the concept of increased sensitivity in screening tests vs. increased specificity in confirmatory tests -- all they will remember was the "Positive".

Until such time as HIV screening tests become as accurate as home pregnancy tests (it wasn't that long ago that this had a screen and a confirmatory test), I think home testing is a hard sell.  Of course, this speaks nothing of the lack of proper emotional support that should be provided -- only to the technical aspect.

[veritas]

Mike,

I'm not kidding! Isn't it the ID's job to reflect that difference?  I know that if these home tests had been available back in the early 90s, I would have taken the home test on a regular basis. Bottom line, anyone is going to freak when they find out they are poz. Sure, the best way to go is to test in conjunction with your doctor (I thank god I had a doctor who insisted), but if the roadblocks to that form of testing makes one do nothing, any port in a storm. Just read the constant worrying in the Am I forum and thats only the small percentage that come to these forums. Remember, if we all did what we were supposed to do we wouldn't be here. I'm a believer that everyone should be tested. If it takes a scare....... !

v

[Ann]

I think it would be far simpler if hiv tests were made routine at the doctor's office. Anyone having a CBC for whatever reason should also be screened for hiv. You could even have people do an oral swab on arrival that would be processed and ready when they saw the doctor.

It would stop all the cases of people being diagnosed late and it would go some way to decrease the stigma surrounding testing.

[Hellraiser]

I think it would be far simpler if hiv tests were made routine at the doctor's office. Anyone having a CBC for whatever reason should also be screened for hiv. You could even have people do an oral swab on arrival that would be processed and ready when they saw the doctor.

It would stop all the cases of people being diagnosed late and it would go some way to decrease the stigma surrounding testing.

For some reason people are against mandatory testing.  In the 80's I could almost see the rationale, but not now.

[Ann]

Not mandatory, but an "opt-out" system. You'd have to tell your doctor to not test for hiv, otherwise, it would be done as a routine just like having your RBCs counted or your liver enzymes evaluated.

[Miss Philicia]

That would catch a lot of people, but by now means all of them.  It certainly would not have caught me, because between the time I was infected and the time I tested (a lapse of approximately five years) I never went to a doctor for anything.  Not unusual for someone in their mid-20's, and certainly not when they changed addresses five times and moved 600 miles, etc.  And yes, I even had insurance.

[bocker3]

Mike,

I'm not kidding! Isn't it the ID's job to reflect that difference?  I know that if these home tests had been available back in the early 90s, I would have taken the home test on a regular basis. Bottom line, anyone is going to freak when they find out they are poz. Sure, the best way to go is to test in conjunction with your doctor (I thank god I had a doctor who insisted), but if the roadblocks to that form of testing makes one do nothing, any port in a storm. Just read the constant worrying in the Am I forum and thats only the small percentage that come to these forums. Remember, if we all did what we were supposed to do we wouldn't be here. I'm a believer that everyone should be tested. If it takes a scare....... !

v

I am all for more testing -- but it has to be in the proper environment.  False positives will cause lots of issues, but so will people improperly using the test and getting a false negative.  I mean there is a reason people get college degrees before they work in clinical labs.  There are not that many home test kits for clinical lab tests because there are many things that can wrong.
Further, I'm not convinced that someone will be more apt to take a home HIV test than to go to an anonymous testing site for this service.  Plus -- if they do use this -- will they know what they should next do?  Will they follow up with a doctor or will they simply fall into despair?  Will they get a confirmatory test or assume that their life is now over?  I remember how I reacted to my positive result -- it wasn't pretty, or logical -- and I was a fairly well-informed individual when it comes to health care and medical issues.
It's good to try and get more people tested, but we can't do it in a self-service setting -- IMO -- at least not today.

Mike

[veritas]

Ann, Mike,

I just read this article on 'opt-out':

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66J6C220100720

This issue with respect to testing is a lot more complicated than meets the eye. Most won't do anything until they find something wrong. I'm leaning toward using any approach to make testing easy and confidential.

v

[bufguy]

I'm one of those who found out using a Home Access test. I was 47, I hadn't had a physical in over 10 years and I had a number of incidences of unsafe sex. I had never been sick or remembered a seroconversion. I ordered the test to confirm I was OK. Much to my shock after sending the kit back, 3 days later calling and reciting my control number I was told I tested positive. That was a Thursday night. By Monday morning I was at the local clinic for a confirmatory oral test and blood draw for western blot.

Yeah it was a shock, but it mobilized me. Healthier than ever now.

[veritas]

bufguy,

I believe it would mobilize many.  Most people know you have to treat hiv and the scare will do it (will to live!).

By the way, your numbers are great!

v

[RapidRod]

Ann, Mike,

I just read this article on 'opt-out':

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66J6C220100720

This issue with respect to testing is a lot more complicated than meets the eye. Most won't do anything until they find something wrong. I'm leaning toward using any approach to make testing easy and confidential.

v

It's only confidential until you get a positive result then it's no longer confidential.

[veritas]

RapidRod,

That's true, thus the home test necessity. Once you are poz, your health takes precedent.

v

[RapidRod]

Use condoms correctly and consistently and you'll prevent HIV and most STD exposures.

[veritas]

RR,

Well yea,your statement is obviously true, but we're talking here about after the fact aren't we? A home test is a must.

v

[Matty the Damned]

RR,

Well yea,your statement is obviously true, but we're talking here about after the fact aren't we? A home test is a must.

v

Actually it's a must not.

MtD

[veritas]

Mtd,

I should have added if you want to maintain confidentiality. I don't agree with this avoid home tests at all. You have to have that ability to keep results confidential until you find out for sure.This confidential issue is one of the most difficult to overcome when you first suspect your poz.

v

[Matty the Damned]

Mtd,

I should have added if you want to maintain confidentiality. I don't agree with this avoid home tests at all. You have to have that ability to keep results confidential until you find out for sure.This confidential issue is one of the most difficult to overcome when you first suspect your poz.

v

Probably you should stick to the Research Forum.

More generally I have to say I'm rather taken aback by this thread. This is simply one of the most disappointing discussions I've ever encountered in this place.

MtD

[bocker3]

Mtd,

I should have added if you want to maintain confidentiality. I don't agree with this avoid home tests at all. You have to have that ability to keep results confidential until you find out for sure.This confidential issue is one of the most difficult to overcome when you first suspect your poz.

v

I don't understand your point -- if you go to a confidential testing site, a negative test remains confidential.  It is only a positive result that requires notification to the state.  If, as you suggest, people who test at home and find they are positive will do what is in their best interest and go to a doctor -- then that doctor will have them take a HIV test and if positive will be reported.  Ah.....  but here is the rub in your logic -- if this home based screening test produced a false positive -- either by design (i.e. increase sensitivity) or improper administration -- their NEGATIVE confirmatory test will NOT be confidential.

Now -- I say again, I am all for increased testing, the difference is that I am for increased testing that is reliable and doesn't contribute to increasing bad behavior.  Remember the bulk of the thread has been about using home testing as a way to "insure safety" in barebacking with a trick.

Mike

[mecch]

There is free rapid testing, anonymous, at on-site places around Switzerland.  Not in other countries? I used to get free tests in NY but had to wait a week or so for results. That was a long time ago.

Free, and 30 minutes, anonymous, and an experienced person doing it, seems like the best option.

[veritas]

Probably you should stick to the Research Forum.

More generally I have to say I'm rather taken aback by this thread. This is simply one of the most disappointing discussions I've ever encountered in this place.

MtD

Perhaps you should fully explain your position. I'm sorry your disappointed.

 I said before in a perfect world the testing should be done in conjunction with your ID. However, for those who are reluctant to do that, then, an alternative is home testing. Anything to get people to test. Evidently, the pr program doesn't seem to be working with respect to testing to find out early, so why not make it  as comfortable as possible? I'm wondering if you know the pros and cons of home testing.

Mike,

If your negative, you can wear it as a badge (I know some people who do). I know we both want the same goal, it's our methods that seem to collide. Bad behavior is rampant, with the 52000 new infections every year. Sure, we know what to do, but that came with a very expensive lesson.It's the "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Barebacking with a trick is a fool's game.

I still have to be convinced.

v

[veritas]

There is free rapid testing, anonymous, at on-site places around Switzerland.  Not in other countries? I used to get free tests in NY but had to wait a week or so for results. That was a long time ago.

Free, and 30 minutes, anonymous, and an experienced person doing it, seems like the best option.

mecch,

What about those who don't want to walk in to one of those clinics? Again, we can see the rationale, but what about the 20 year old with no experience? Fear drives this disease in more ways then one.

v

[RapidRod]

mecch,

What about those who don't want to walk in to one of those clinics? Again, we can see the rationale, but what about the 20 year old with no experience? Fear drives this disease in more ways then one.

v

It's 2010 it isn't rocket science to know how to prevent HIV transmission. People just don't do it. Maybe amputation of the penis at birth would stop half of the HIV transmissions.

[veritas]

RR,

So are you saying that my previous post about "It won't happen to me syndrome" is valid?

v

[mecch]

mecch,

What about those who don't want to walk in to one of those clinics? Again, we can see the rationale, but what about the 20 year old with no experience? Fear drives this disease in more ways then one.

v

Well they are not "clinics" with blinking lights and video surveillance, for god's sake, just quiet offices.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  Can't solve all the problems in life, can we.

If someone in rather progressive country can't deal with getting an HIV test at his doctor or some office somewhere, out of fear, then doing it at home and getting a positive result is going to put that scaredy cat in a pretty bad emotional state. 

[veritas]

mecch,

"If someone in rather progressive country can't deal with getting an HIV test at his doctor or some office somewhere, out of fear, then doing it at home and getting a positive result is going to put that scaredy cat in a pretty bad emotional state"

and mobilize that person into action, as with bufguy.

v

[mecch]

Bufguy did not mention that he took a Home Test because he was afraid of doing a test somewhere else. 
Someone else brought fear into the question - of how and where to test.

[mecch]

If there are tests that can give an accurate result in 20 minutes, it would seem like having them for home use could save thousands from infection possibly.  If ya brought someone home, you could both do the test.  I know it isn't romantic, but better than getting infected.  Is it a matter of technology and cost?  Do they think if you had a home test that it would give people a false sense of security and not use condoms?      

Its a farfetched, wishful thinking, perfect world idea.

The home test would have to show recent infection.  And be as cheap as a condom.  But hey, most of the time you can get condoms for free someplace or another.
Is that dollar home hitech HIV test gonna test for other STD's too?  What about influenza. Think of the work days that could be saved.

[veritas]

mecch,

That's true, but evidently he felt more comfortable with the home-test or he would have tested elsewhere.

The action to get people to test must be changed. If you do the same thing over and over again, you get the same result.

v