FDA panel backs at-home HIV test

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2012 3:07 AM GMT
    Not in stores yet, a few more administrative hurdles to overcome. But it's basically the same OraQuick mouth swab test already in use that gives 20-minute results. And you don't have to send the kit in for evaluation, you read it yourself.

    http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11721251-fda-panel-backs-at-home-hiv-test?lite
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2012 5:21 AM GMT
    Awesome! Between this and the whole Truvada approval, it's been a pretty good week in the fight against HIV. Although with the latter...I think condoms are and always will be the best barrier against infection, at least besides getting tested with your partner.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    May 17, 2012 1:58 PM GMT
    I have some concerns about tests like this being done at home..

    It arguably makes it easier to do, relieves the stigma that some people may feel by having to ask for it...I see how it would lead to more testing, but...I do have concerns.

    All these "quick" HIV tests (blood, saliva), require standardization and controls for accurate testing..As mentioned in the article, there is a risk of lower accuracy leading to false negative (false positives are fine as confirmatory blood testing would be done, so you would cause significant stress but not much else).

    My other concern would be sort of in line with the above...The mental burden and necessary insight. There are reasons laws are in place where HIV tests can't be read over the phone (loosely followed, but still)...and that all these set ups that do HIV testing require counseling and have the people there...It's a scary disease and I do worry about people having the necessary insight to A. Handle the diagnosis and B. Appropriately follow up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2012 2:12 PM GMT
    north_runner saidAwesome! Between this and the whole Truvada approval, it's been a pretty good week in the fight against HIV. Although with the latter...I think condoms are and always will be the best barrier against infection, at least besides getting tested with your partner.

    Well the anti-gay right-wingers here hate this. Anything that reduces the possibility of more gay deaths, or AIDS deaths they can blame on gays, enrages them. This is why the US Right Wing, and their puppets here on RJ, oppose safe sex education, condoms, and birth control education. Every time a gay dies from AIDS an Angel rings a bell to rejoice. That's what our US Right Wing teaches.

    But hopefully this totally autonomous & anonymous HIV test will encourage more people to test themselves. And to defeat the US Right Wing that has thrown up every obstacle to anonymous HIV testing, in the hope that more gays will die.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 12:51 PM GMT
    One other drawback I see for this test is that people won't get tested for other STDs following risky sexual behavior. However, I still think this home test is a good idea. They are supposed to provide a toll-free hotline for people who test postive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 1:01 PM GMT
    medfordguy saidOne other drawback I see for this test is that people won't get tested for other STDs following risky sexual behavior. However, I still think this home test is a good idea. They are supposed to provide a toll-free hotline for people who test postive.

    The lack of counseling is one of the objections to a home test. How many will pick up the phone when they see the test return a positive result is a question being asked by health experts.

    And the mouth swab produces more false positives than a blood draw, which is why a testing center will urge the person to immediately have a follow-up blood test if the swab shows positive. But that won't happen at home.

    The fear is the false-positive person will begin to have risky sex, thinking they no longer have anything to lose, and become genuinely poz as a result. So these are some of the issues being debated about this home test, along with the usual Right Wing desire to harm and never help gays.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    May 19, 2012 6:39 PM GMT
    Big false negative risk!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2012 4:17 PM GMT
    commoncoll saidBig false negative risk!

    But there is a false-negative risk taking a test in Dr's office shortly after exposure. Regular testing is still required.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    May 21, 2012 4:56 PM GMT
    medfordguy said
    commoncoll saidBig false negative risk!

    But there is a false-negative risk taking a test in Dr's office shortly after exposure. Regular testing is still required.

    True, that's why they tell you that reliable results won't show until around 3 months.

    But with this, people will treat it like pregnancy tests and think that they are safe when they are not and will spread the virus to others.
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    May 21, 2012 5:10 PM GMT
    commoncoll said
    medfordguy said
    commoncoll saidBig false negative risk!

    But there is a false-negative risk taking a test in Dr's office shortly after exposure. Regular testing is still required.

    True, that's why they tell you that reliable results won't show until around 3 months.

    But with this, people will treat it like pregnancy tests and think that they are safe when they are not and will spread the virus to others.


    How is that any different from in-person testing? I can't begin to count the number of guys I've seen who get a negative test result from the doctor or clinic and immediately trumpet it as unchanging gospel truth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 5:27 PM GMT
    commoncoll saidBig false negative risk!


    Half the people that are HIV positive (not infected, positive!) don't know they are. I'd say that the risk of false negatives is more than outweighed by all those that don't know and have an easier time finding out.

    This, and of course the fact that for an HIV positive person, finding out early they got infected can make a huge difference in their treatment plan and health outcome.
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    May 21, 2012 7:09 PM GMT
    I think this is a very good thing. I would love to see if they can get the price way down as well. Imagine if they only cost $5.

    Hmm...I see potential benefits and potential problems with this. We will see.

    What would be great is if you could do a cheap $1 test that would test for every sexual related disease/virus and get results within a few minutes. It would be interesting to see how something like that would change hookups and casual dating.

    I wonder if something like that would change my feelings about hookups..hmmm...it still would not solve my dislike of treating other human beings like pieces of meat to be used.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    May 23, 2012 4:10 AM GMT
    themachine said
    commoncoll saidBig false negative risk!


    Half the people that are HIV positive (not infected, positive!) don't know they are. I'd say that the risk of false negatives is more than outweighed by all those that don't know and have an easier time finding out.

    This, and of course the fact that for an HIV positive person, finding out early they got infected can make a huge difference in their treatment plan and health outcome.

    You're right. I whole-heartedly support the idea. I am simply trying to expand on an important issue with the matter and that people need to be aware of this risk. Especially, since once this testing can be carried out to developing regions like Asia and Africa where HIV is rampant where there will be no ELISA testing or any other reliable test available in the US. Of course, as time goes on, the test will probably be improved as to the markers it tests for.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    May 23, 2012 6:09 PM GMT
    commoncoll said
    medfordguy said
    commoncoll saidBig false negative risk!

    But there is a false-negative risk taking a test in Dr's office shortly after exposure. Regular testing is still required.

    True, that's why they tell you that reliable results won't show until around 3 months.

    But with this, people will treat it like pregnancy tests and think that they are safe when they are not and will spread the virus to others.


    so you're saying i should stop taking pregnancy tests?


    but i LIKE to pee on things!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 6:28 PM GMT
    Possibly I missed it. Was there any indication about the test's cost?
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    May 23, 2012 6:38 PM GMT
    medfordguy saidOne other drawback I see for this test is that people won't get tested for other STDs following risky sexual behavior. However, I still think this home test is a good idea. They are supposed to provide a toll-free hotline for people who test postive.


    i'm against home testing on one principle:

    how are you going to replicate the fun of having a doctor handle your junk and shove that swab way up into your dik, and watching his awkward behaviour when you start getting hard while he's pulling poking and squeezing things.

    I LOVE that part!