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

[mecch]

mecch,

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

First of all, you don't know that to be the case.
Second of all, since you don't know, it can't be used as argument in the debate on the merits and disadvantages of home testing. 

[veritas]

mecch,

Thats true, he should speak for himself. However, that doesn't alter the fact that more people should be testing and I believe home-testing to be a viable option.

v

[mecch]

I think "routine testing" for everyone is the idea that should be pushed and supported.  Its quite complicated for a number of reasons - for instance in the USA - how would you provide expensive health care to the all the HIV cases revealed?  And how to secure privacy and nondiscrimination. 

But all these things must improve in tandem.

In rich countries with universal health care, routine testing should be the norm but I'm not sure it is. Wonder why not. I guess because people have a right to decide what they want to know and be known about their bodies and health. I think one of the sticklers is that HIV is transmissible but not socially communicable. I think state health officials can order measures to contain tuberculosis, for example.

Home tests have their value but they are not the panacea.

[veritas]

"Home tests have their value but they are not the panacea. "

 We are in total agreement !

v

[bocker3]

I believe home-testing to be a viable option.

v

This is the main point of contention, IMO -- it is NOT, at present, a viable option.  There are too many technical issues -- that combined with the emotional issues of individuals make this a bad option at this time.  I fear you are minimizing this issues.

When we get to a point that the sensitivity and specificity of the test is such that a confirmatory test is not required, then we get closer to viability.  Until then, I think it is a huge mistake. 

Mike

[veritas]

Mike,

One would have to take a confirmatory test anyway.

v

[RapidRod]

Veritas,
They aren't approved and the decision was main by persons with greater knowlege then you.

[veritas]

RR,

Not approved by the FDA, however, endorsed by other organizations( ie: WHO, UNICEF.).



"A seventh test, iDiagnostics Rapid HIV Test, is performed in the home, but does not require the sample to be sent to a lab. Instead, the patient uses either a blood or urine sample to perform the test on their own. Test results normally appear in about fifteen minutes. This test is not approved by the FDA, but is endorsed by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF"

Those organizations have greater knowledge than you.  Perhaps we should borrow from the rest of the world and not be so arrogant as to think our way is the only way.

http://aidshiv.suite101.com/article.cfm/rapid_screening_tests_for_hiv


v

[RapidRod]

NOT APPROVED TEST.

[veritas]

Your CAPS told me all I wanted to know.

[tednlou2]

This isn't just about barebacking.  I got HIV while using a condom.  I've talked about it before--some laughed.  The guy took it off without me knowing.  He was a long-term good friend.  Now, if I had a very accurate, fairly inexpensive, home, rapid HIV test, we both could have done it.  If he was outside the window period, it would have shown up.  If he was still in the window, I wouldn't have known.  I would still have liked the option to see whether his HIV would have shown up.

About the emotional side of learning your poz.....  would learning you're poz from some bureaucrat at the STD Clinic make it any less horrible?  I understand if you test poz in front of that sex partner then they now know your status.  I would still have liked the option and would like to see a very accurate rapid test for others.   

[Rev. Moon]

About the emotional side of learning your poz.....  would learning you're poz from some bureaucrat at the STD Clinic make it any less horrible?  I understand if you test poz in front of that sex partner then they now know your status.  I would still have liked the option and would like to see a very accurate rapid test for others.   

Tedderz, you are like the embodiment of innocence.  Do you think, knowing how sensitive you are, that you would have been able to provide comfort or support to some screaming queen who just found out about their status in your bedroom?  You'd probably have some sort of nervous breakdown along with them (and become a monk after that encounter).

These are the sort of "news" that, in my opinion, require the right setting and cast of supporting characters before they get delivered.  A trick's bedroom doesn't fiit that definition for me.

[tednlou2]

Tedderz, you are like the embodiment of innocence.  Do you think, knowing how sensitive you are, that you would have been able to provide comfort or support to some screaming queen who just found out about their status in your bedroom?  You'd probably have some sort of nervous breakdown along with them (and become a monk after that encounter).

These are the sort of "news" that, in my opinion, require the right setting and cast of supporting characters before they get delivered.  A trick's bedroom doesn't fiit that definition for me.

I see your point.  This guy was suppose to be a friend.  Even as a friend, comforting him would have been difficult.  I can't imagine having to do that with a complete stranger.  I mean, I know I wouldn't have known what to say to comfort them.  So, I see your point.  I still think the option would be nice to have.  Many people who have been dating someone get pressured into having unprotected sex.  They would have the option to say...here, take this test.  Yes, they shouldn't allow themselves to be pressured and play with their health, but it happens.  Even in relationships, people will lie and say they went and got tested and they are neg.  I have a friend where he and his partner were suppose to go get tested together.  His partner said he was right near the health dept after work and decided to go ahead and get his.  His partner may have told the truth.  However, they were suppose to do it together and get the results together.  I told my friend that seemed shady to me.  If he had a home test, he could say let's take this together to double check without seeming to distrust him too much.  Or, he could insist on both of them testing together at the clinic like agreed.     

I learned my status in the hospital with the doc saying, "You are HIV poz and actually have AIDS.  You should stay away from cats and dogs.  We'll have an infectious disease doctor come see you at some point."  You would have thought in a hospital setting they would send a counselor to talk to you.  I guess that is where I'm coming from on that issue.  Would it make a difference whether you learned your status at home or at the doc?  I'm sure many testing sites have very good counseling.  Having to comfort a sex partner and that sex partner learning your status if you are the one who tested poz is the huge downside.  For people who just won't use condoms, it seems like a good tool even with the downsides.     

[veritas]

Tednlou2,

" For people who just won't use condoms, it seems like a good tool even with the downsides"

Exactly ! However, not only for a nightly rendezvous, but to also eliminate roadblocks to testing in general.  In a perfect world, Da Rev's scenario is ideal with the appropriate cast of characters and right setting. However, this scenario doesn't happen all the time and it's available. Why is that? Furthermore, people, in general, are stronger than most believe when faced with a life-threatening issue. A home test eliminates those roadblocks trenched in fear and allows the process to begin after the  initial "freak". Most will do what's necessary and mobilize themselves. If the status quo was working, the push for additional testing would not be necessary. Lets not cut short the intestinal fortitude of people in general and allow the simplest path toward testing  to be available. If you do the samething over and over again you get the same result. ( By the way, I agree with the Rev, that a trick's bedroom is probably not the best place to test.)

v

[RapidRod]

Then you have those same ignorant people asking if they were at risk of contracting HIV from the test kit. It never ends.

[veritas]

RR,

I have to admit your right. There are those who won't "get it". Those ,we hope, come to the Am I forum. (HELP!!!!). lol

v

[RapidRod]

I work another forum and here is a question just asked today from a guy that used a home test kit.

Sorry to ask why i can't contact HIV from a test kit, I m so scared??? As  the kit "purified recombinant antigens of HIV".  I have gone to government department for checking my blood. The blood test report will be released the coming tuesday or wednesday. but what im concerning now it that kit containing HIV antigens......

[Matty the Damned]

I work another forum and here is a question just asked today from a guy that used a home test kit.

Sorry to ask why i can't contact HIV from a test kit, I m so scared??? As  the kit "purified recombinant antigens of HIV".  I have gone to government department for checking my blood. The blood test report will be released the coming tuesday or wednesday. but what im concerning now it that kit containing HIV antigens......

Don't waste your time Roddles. Whilst AMI is a sewer trap, Living With is exponentially worse.

MtD

[veritas]

He probably didn't read or understand the directions. The silver lining is, it mobilized him to get a second test.

v

[Ann]

Then you have those same ignorant people asking if they were at risk of contracting HIV from the test kit. It never ends.

And how many times have we had people who used the ones you interpret yourself at home - the ones that aren't approved for home use but are available on the internet anyway - and come to us because they got the damn thing out of the garbage an hour or so later "to check it again" and found that the positive line had developed?

This is one of the reasons why the "interpret at home" tests have a high rate of false positives. With many of them, there seems to be a time-specific window in which the result may be read with accuracy. After that, for whatever reason, all the lines come up.

Can you imagine a situation where the trick you've just tested goes back and pulls the test out of the waste-paper basket next to your bed or bath, finds one or both of them are now showing positive results, and proceeds to beat the living crap out of you? I sure can.

He probably didn't read or understand the directions. The silver lining is, it mobilized him to get a second test.

And going by what we see in Am I - as well as other parts of the forum - a lot of people don't have very good reading comprehension skills. And some of the information that comes with the non-approved home tests is not only written in gobbledegook, but they also leave out important information like the fact that the positive line will appear after a certain amount of time, regardless of your status.

[RapidRod]

And how many times have we had people who used the ones you interpret yourself at home - the ones that aren't approved for home use but are available on the internet anyway - and come to us because they got the damn thing out of the garbage an hour or so later "to check it again" and found that the positive line had developed?

This is one of the reasons why the "interpret at home" tests have a high rate of false positives. With many of them, there seems to be a time-specific window in which the result may be read with accuracy. After that, for whatever reason, all the lines come up.

Can you imagine a situation where the trick you've just tested goes back and pulls the test out of the waste-paper basket next to your bed or bath, finds one or both of them are now showing positive results, and proceeds to beat the living crap out of you? I sure can.

And going by what we see in Am I - as well as other parts of the forum - a lot of people don't have very good reading comprehension skills. And some of the information that comes with the non-approved home tests is not only written in gobbledegook, but they also leave out important information like the fact that the positive line will appear after a certain amount of time, regardless of your status.

All time time Ann. That why that guy finally went and had his test done elsewhere. It only took about ten replies to him to convince him to get a proper approved test and you can't contract HIV from a test kit.

[veritas]

Ann,

What you say may be true, however, what about all those who have used the test correctly and have gone on to test again. Also, how many more would test with a confidential home-test readily available?  We just don't know those numbers. Why does the WHO endorse these tests? We do know that more testing should be done, thus zeroing in on the reasons why people don't test ( like fear of exposure) is important. The more options the better.

Why are we knocking  potential members for being uninformed? Everyone has to start somewhere. Look at it as a teaching moment.

Learning is a process, with freeflowing ideas, we don't have to agree.

If new ideas had never evolved, we would still be living in caves.

v

[Ann]

Also, how many more would test with a confidential home-test readily available? 

There already IS one readily available. It's called Home Access. You don't interpret it yourself, you send it in to a lab.

The ones you interpret yourself are just too fraught with chances of wrong interpretation, both negative and positive. You'll never get me to think they're a good idea. And why the WHO endorses them is beyond me.

And the ones you interpret yourself are exactly the ones Ted is talking about. Otherwise, that trick you test in your bedroom would have to hang out for a few days before you could ring up for your results.

[RapidRod]

veritas, what part are you not comprehending? Education doesn't work? How long has HIV Prevention been going on? Take a look at the "I just tested Positive Forum." Is education working? No. Hell no. If people can't do something as simple as using a condom correctly and consistently you expect them to be able to read the instructions to an at home test? Look where you are.. I think that is enough said.  

[veritas]

Ann,

That test is not totally confidential. There's the rub.
By the way, I believe you said something similar about PrEP (your quote went something like this: Any doctor prescribing hiv drugs to someone without hiv should loose their license.)

RR,

Education just doesn't work? Perhaps the methods need to be changed. Look, I certainly understand the frustrations with trying to convey what we take for granted, but your only looking at a small percentage in that forum. How many has it worked for?This doesn't mean we give up on the difficult ones. We try to find other ways. That's why these forums "work'. If one person's explanation doesn't do it, another might chime in with the "Aha" moment. Same for home-testing.

By the way, I'm comprehending a lot in this thread.

v

[RapidRod]

Ann,

That test is not totally confidential. There's the rub.
By the way, I believe you said something similar about PrEP (your quote went something like this: Any doctor prescribing hiv drugs to someone without hiv should loose their license.)

RR,

Education just doesn't work? Perhaps the methods need to be changed. Look, I certainly understand the frustrations with trying to convey what we take for granted, but your only looking at a small percentage in that forum. How many has it worked for?This doesn't mean we give up on the difficult ones. We try to find other ways. That's why these forums "work'. If one person's explanation doesn't do it, another might chime in with the "Aha" moment. Same for home-testing.

By the way, I'm comprehending a lot in this thread.

v

Just in the US alone,there are apx. 250k people walking around with HIV that don't know their status and you have 52k diagnosed with HIV each year in the US. Home Rapid Testing is not the fix. How many of the 52k contracted HIV from excessive drinking or drug use and had unprotected sex or shared works? How many after all these years say, "it won't happen to me I'm not like those people?" Who is going to go out to the bars or to a shooting gallery make a pickup come home drunk or stoned and both take a rapid HIV test which there is no possible way to know if the results would be true because of the sexual history of the other person. Sure you would know your own but you wouldn't get a realistic and believeable result from the other person and don't say you would have to take their word on their last test results or there word on when they last had unprotected sex. I can see you in a back room shooting gallery one needle and go wait, " I have to do a rapid test on you first before we share works." veritas how many threads have you read this year that someone was jailed for having unprotected sex when they knew they were positive and didn't disclose their status? How many threads have you read in the Living With Forum that the poster won't disclose to his/her family their status let alone to friends? The answer is use condoms correctly and consistently until you are in a monogamous relationship and both have tested negative together and don't ever share your works with anyone. There is no reason that we have this many exposures a year. There will always be a few exceptions such as rape, a cheating lover and medical screw ups but not to the degree we have now. Rapid Home Testing is not the fix.

[veritas]

RR,

Actually, our views on quite a few of what you posted, are similar. I wouldn't take anyone's word as to their status and I would always use a condom. You also reiterated that which I said earlier about the "It can't happen to me syndrome". I agree, that scenario is difficult to overcome in the throws of passion. Don't you think that not knowing one's status is a major cause of 52000 infections a year? Sure there will be those who will wantingly infect others, any test won't help. Thank god they are in the minority.
The drug scenario is another issue that has not been very successful.. "Just say no" doesn't work. If the billions spent on that program had been funneled into aids research, we might have had a cure.

 I don't believe that I said home-testing is the end all, it is just another tool to make testing easier and more acceptable. Test-- anyway you want-- but test! There's the slogan.

v

[bocker3]

Veritas -

I think you are simply glossing over the fact that the administration and interpretation of these tests are complex.  Look, I went to college for 4 years to be able to work in clinical labs.  I had to sit for a national certification exam and many states require licensing for laboratory professionals.  Yes, there are "simpler" test, e.g. home pregnance tests, but these took years to get to a point that they were allowed as true "home" tests.  If doing lab tests at home were as easy as you are suggesting, then why all the regulation and education requirements for clinical laboratories??  It's quite simple -- because many things can go wrong in the testing process -- this is why labs run Quality Control samples throughout the day (manufactured specimens with "known" results), as well as quality assurances processes throughout the day.  This is just the technical argument against this kit.  Hopefully, at some point in the future, the technology can actually help insure that these concerns are minimal -- but that ain't today.  Once that happens, of course, there are a multitude of other issues to tackle.

Ultimately I think you are assuming a "happy path" -- everything done correctly, things done for the right reasons, followed by all the correct next steps.  That isn't real life.  Ann, being the wise one that she is, correctly points out that if a "trick" re-reads your result after the deed is done and see's it's now showing "positive" -- I fear there will be more than mere beatings going on -- someone is going to end up DEAD.

Finally, your "confidential testing" argument has big holes in it -- I believe I pointed this out earlier, but you haven't addressed.  There are plenty of anonymous testing sites, where your identity is never known.  If you come up negative, no one will know you took the test.  If you come up positive, well -- at some point that anonymity will disappear, if you follow up on the result.  The same would hold true with the at home testing.  Who cares about anonymity on a negative result?  It's the positive result that has reprecussions -- and that can only remain a "secret" if one does nothing about the result.

Your heart is in the right place -- more testing is a goal that, I hope, most would be for -- however, home testing should not be part of that, at this time.

Mike

[veritas]

Mike,

I respect your education and especially the field your in. We need more dedicated people such as yourself.

That being said, I'll ask you the same question I asked Ann ( who by the way I respect for her humanity): Why does the World Health Organization endorse the rapid home test? Sure, things can go wrong but they go wrong in the lab also. Does that mean we shouldn't have labs? I believe your arguement doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
My arguement with respect to "confidential testing sites" is the fact you have to face another person, instead of the privacy of your own home. And the mail-in is another unnecessay barrier to be overcome.
This trick scenario is way out of proportion. Could it happen? perhaps. Is it likely? no

Unfortunately, the "correct " steps aren't working. There is another way.

I wish you were doing my labs.

v

[bocker3]

Mike,

I respect your education and especially the field your in. We need more dedicated people such as yourself.

That being said, I'll ask you the same question I asked Ann ( who by the way I respect for her humanity): Why does the World Health Organization endorse the rapid home test? Sure, things can go wrong but they go wrong in the lab also. Does that mean we shouldn't have labs? I believe your arguement doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
My arguement with respect to "confidential testing sites" is the fact you have to face another person, instead of the privacy of your own home. And the mail-in is another unnecessay barrier to be overcome.
This trick scenario is way out of proportion. Could it happen? perhaps. Is it likely? no

Unfortunately, the "correct " steps aren't working. There is another way.

I wish you were doing my labs.

v

I have no idea why WHO endorses these tests.  Maybe, for countries where there are physical barriers to testing (i.e. few places, high cost??) vs. the fear barrier here in the US, makes it more sensible.  I really don't know -- but as my mother always said, "If Johnny jumped off a bridge, would you do it too??".  Just because WHO endorses it, doesn't make it right here.
You are correct -- lab professionals actually do make errors.  So, if that can happen with highly trained individuals, utilizing multiple QC/QA safeguards, imagine the increased frequency of occurence with the average person doing these tests!
Now I understand where you are coming from with "confidential testing".  My thought on that is that there SHOULD be someone else there, to help educate and deal with the shock of a poz result -- but I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Unfortunately, I could not do your lab testing.  I haven't worked in a lab for a number of years now -- the pay simply didn't cut it for me.  I've found a better paying job.  I'm certainly not passionate about this job, like I was in the lab, but it does allow me to pursue my other passion -- travel.  Maybe some day, once my retirement nest egg is sufficient, I can return to it.

Mike

[tednlou2]

I just wanted to point out that I said I would like to see a rapid test manufactured that is very, very accurate.  If it isn't, then I can see so many problems obviously.  Removing the whole trick senario--many people are afraid and/or embarrass to get tested even at a clinic where they don't even know anyone.  I'm sure with the test you mail in, people are afraid their identity will be known with those.  With a rapid home test, you are the only one who will know if you take it by yourself.

About false positives--- When I first went to my HIV doc, I was told they were sure I had a false positive.  They told me they were sure I was actually negative.  Well, stupidly, my partner and I had risky sex after that thinking they knew what they were talking about.  I felt so much joy.  When it was confirmed again, it was like being told all over again.  So, from my experiences with health officials, I would rather test at home if there was a very, very accurate test.  I guess if they can't get the one at doc offices right, then I suppose they'll never perfect a home test.   

[bocker3]

I just wanted to point out that I said I would like to see a rapid test manufactured that is very, very accurate.  If it isn't, then I can see so many problems obviously.  Removing the whole trick senario--many people are afraid and/or embarrass to get tested even at a clinic where they don't even know anyone.  I'm sure with the test you mail in, people are afraid their identity will be known with those.  With a rapid home test, you are the only one who will know if you take it by yourself.

About false positives--- When I first went to my HIV doc, I was told they were sure I had a false positive.  They told me they were sure I was actually negative.  Well, stupidly, my partner and I had risky sex after that thinking they knew what they were talking about.  I felt so much joy.  When it was confirmed again, it was like being told all over again.  So, from my experiences with health officials, I would rather test at home if there was a very, very accurate test.  I guess if they can't get the one at doc offices right, then I suppose they'll never perfect a home test.   

Ted,

Apparently the one at the clinic DID get it right.  What went wrong was someone stupidly telling you that they were "sure it was a false positive".  Quite frankly I'd be shocked to hear someone say that in this setting -- it was beyond irresponsible.

Mike

[bufguy]

vBufguy here....I took the home test because I was going to schedule a physical...which I hadn't had in yearrs...and I felt uncomfortable asking a doctor for the test. Basically I wanted to go in with a "clean bill of health". After testing positive it became to me a life or death issue...any embarrasment aside.
I have a great primary care doc who is also my ID.

Bottom line...Anything to get people to test is worthwhile. I might still be walking around not knowing.

[veritas]

Bufguy,

Thanks for your reply.

I'll bet there are many out there who would test, if a rapid test that showed results in 15 minutes was approved by the FDA for home use. The will to live usually wins, not to mention all those potential infections avoided.

Test -- any way you want -- but test. Your life depends on it!

My gut told me we were in-sync !

v

[RapidRod]

Bufguy,

Thanks for your reply.

I'll bet there are many out there who would test, if a rapid test that showed results in 15 minutes was approved by the FDA for home use. The will to live usually wins, not to mention all those potential infections avoided.

Test -- any way you want -- but test. Your life depends on it!

My gut told me we were in-sync !

v

And how many suicides would there be because of false positives?

[leatherman]

And how many suicides would there be because of false positives?

since you brought that up, what's the percentage now of people who test positive and commit suicide instead of getting treatment? I would imagine the percentage would be the same for these people taking the home test and getting a positive (false or not). (Just like it should be the same percentage for those who test positive and go home to abuse their partner for "giving it to them".)

obviously that kind of person has much greater issues than just possibly being HIV, if they would go to the lengths of testing for an illness and then kill themselves rather than treat it? Wonder how that compares with other illnesses? How many cancer diagnosees find out and kill themselves rather than try any treatment?

besides it seems like a lot of people put a lot of faith into after-diagnosis counseling. (for disclosure sake, I received no counseling from the OH health dept when they gave me my results in 1992. They didn't even tell me to have safe sex. The nice RN just implied that this diagnosis meant I was going to die soon.) Just because your doctor will talk to you a few minutes about treatment options after giving you that kind of diagnosis doesn't always mean you get lifted out of the despair of receiving that diagnosis. Although I do agree that counseling after receiving a positive HIV result would be the best way to go, it's obviously not the only way as there are many stories of people who received no support after getting their positive results and yet who went on to get treatment rather than commit suicide

[phildinftlaudy]

RR,

Not approved by the FDA, however, endorsed by other organizations( ie: WHO, UNICEF.).



"A seventh test, iDiagnostics Rapid HIV Test, is performed in the home, but does not require the sample to be sent to a lab. Instead, the patient uses either a blood or urine sample to perform the test on their own. Test results normally appear in about fifteen minutes. This test is not approved by the FDA, but is endorsed by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF"

Those organizations have greater knowledge than you.  Perhaps we should borrow from the rest of the world and not be so arrogant as to think our way is the only way.

http://aidshiv.suite101.com/article.cfm/rapid_screening_tests_for_hiv


v

I searched the WHO website, couldn't find their endorsement of home test -- could you direct me there?
The only thing I found was their policy statement regarding HIV testing:
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/vct/en/hivtestingpolicy04.pdf
which basically states the need for confidentiality and for appropriate counseling to occur.

I would have to agree that at this time, home testing, as discussed on the posts on this thread doesn't seem like a wise option.  I think testing should be more accessible, including the ability (as is in some places) to have a counselor/tester come to your home or other mutually agreeable location.  The Home Access test, which does have you mail in and then call to get results, still has its flaws (but at least there is a "counseling component" and, hopefully, and effort to ensure linkage to treatment).

I think that many people who would self test and determine their own results may be in the same group of people whose anxiety, fear of stigma, etc. would keep them from following up for a Western blot, as well as following up for treatment.

-Phil

[RapidRod]

since you brought that up, what's the percentage now of people who test positive and commit suicide instead of getting treatment? I would imagine the percentage would be the same for these people taking the home test and getting a positive (false or not). (Just like it should be the same percentage for those who test positive and go home to abuse their partner for "giving it to them".)

obviously that kind of person has much greater issues than just possibly being HIV, if they would go to the lengths of testing for an illness and then kill themselves rather than treat it? Wonder how that compares with other illnesses? How many cancer diagnosees find out and kill themselves rather than try any treatment?

besides it seems like a lot of people put a lot of faith into after-diagnosis counseling. (for disclosure sake, I received no counseling from the OH health dept when they gave me my results in 1992. They didn't even tell me to have safe sex. The nice RN just implied that this diagnosis meant I was going to die soon.) Just because your doctor will talk to you a few minutes about treatment options after giving you that kind of diagnosis doesn't always mean you get lifted out of the despair of receiving that diagnosis. Although I do agree that counseling after receiving a positive HIV result would be the best way to go, it's obviously not the only way as there are many stories of people who received no support after getting their positive results and yet who went on to get treatment rather than commit suicide

I was diagnosed in 84 and was given a notebook with a lot of Q&A and telephone numbers to all the ASO in my area. In 2005 when I was hospitalized a rep from the Dept of Health came to the hospital. Gave me another note book full of all the programs available and more phone numbers to state agencies. They also submitted the paperwork for SSI and Medicaid. All of that was done before I got released from the hospital. I guess it is different in parts of Ohio.

[veritas]

RR,

" Although death from suiciide is common in advanced HIV infection, notification of a positive HIV test does "NOT" appear to lead to a sudden and substantial rise in suicide death".

RR where are you getting your info? I'll give you the link to this study and please read it, however, if you want to save some time go directly to the conclusions.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q5mySSDUbokJ:www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/slides/5-4190s1_10.ppt+Suicides+with+an+hiv+diagnosis&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

v

ps: The above study was submitted to the FDA.

[RapidRod]

RR,

" Although death from suiciide is common in advanced HIV infection, notification of a positive HIV test does "NOT" appear to lead to a sudden and substantial rise in suicide death".

RR where are you getting your info? I'll give you the link to this study and please read it, however, if you want to save some time go directly to the conclusions.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q5mySSDUbokJ:www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/slides/5-4190s1_10.ppt+Suicides+with+an+hiv+diagnosis&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

v

For gods sake if you are going to quote something can't you at least try to find something that is more up to date.

[veritas]

Let's see, that was 2005. You still haven't provided your studies. Please, update me.
Don't you think suicides would be greater when diagnosis was a death sentence? Your response is a dodge!


v

[leatherman]

I was diagnosed in 84 and was given a notebook with a lot of Q&A and telephone numbers to all the ASO in my area. ... guess it is different in parts of Ohio.

yeppers. I had to handle all my own paperwork and medical issues (along with those of two partners in 1994 and 2008) as there wasn't even an ASO within a 3-5 county range. I thought we were lucky just to have one ID doc in the county. On the second day I was released from the hospital having PCP, I was bundled up sitting all by myself in the waiting room of the Human Services dtp (welfare) praying I could get some help in paying my new medical bills. It took two months just to get access to HIV meds. In 2008, by the time an SS agent finally arranged to interview my last late partner, I had already completed the paperwork myself. (He died before the paperwork could even be completed by the agency, and I had to, along with the hospital, file legal papers to get SS to retroactively cover those hospital expenses. Thank goodness I had started the paperwork earlier rather than relying on them) Ryan White issues were handled through one agent in a "Family Services" agency as one of her "secondary" duties. I think I spoke/saw her all for 4 times in 20 yrs.

It was until I moved to SC, in an area with a population across three counties nearly double the size of my one Ohio city, before I had an ASO to work with. Go figure. I used to think I would have to move to a larger city to get assistance like from an ASO, but it took was moving out into the countryside of SC.