You can now test for HIV at home

[er0tic_chill]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved OraQuick, a product that allows you to test for HIV in your own home. An over-the-counter test already existed but required you to prick your finger and send the blood sample to a lab.  But the new test allows users to take a swab from the inside of their gums and wait 20 to 40 minutes to see the

Comments

[poetic_pixie_13]

This could definitely help folks who aren't able to/are too scared to get a test done in a clinic. It's always better to get a doctor's advice and counselling but for a lot of people who are positive going into that clinic, especially if you don't have anonymous HIV testing available near you, just isn't realistically a possibility. You shouldn't have to give ID though. It would just.... lead to a whole lot bullshit.

We as a society need to get rid of the stigma around being positive or suffering from HIV. You can't tell if someone is positive by just looking at them and folks of all colours, backgrounds, classes, genders and sexualities are positive and living fulfilling, healthy lives. It's not a death sentence anymore.

[mutive]

You know, I think that this is great in a lot of ways.

My one concern is that an HIV diagnosis is a huge deal. If I got one, I'd honestly want someone to sit me down and talk me through with what my options are, how high the rate of false positives are (which yes, can be a huge problem), etc.

So I'm torn. I think that everyone should regularly get HIV tested (as that is the best way to prevent the spread of the disease). But I'm not sure that I'd want to do it on my own. (Although I suppose it's good that there's the choice to do it that way...but still...I can totally see thinking that it wasn't such a big deal, just to freak out if I got a positive - false or otherwise.)

[vvalkyri]

I share the same concerns.

[mutive]

Yeah. It seems like a great idea on one level (more people able to know their status, great! Cheaper alternative! Great! Way for people scared of clinics to get a diagnosis! Great!) But on the other, this isn't a minor diagnosis like a strep throat - it's something that *is* a big deal. Even if it's not deadly, it's a major life changer. And 1/5000 false positives is still reasonably high.

(I believe that the math works out that in low risk groups in the US, positive rates are really low. 0.01% according to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/resources/reports/hiv_prevalence/low-risk.htm, which is 1/10,000. You can work out the math, but this means that a positive result is *more* likely to be due to a test error than an actual diagnosis in a low risk population.)

[vvalkyri]

the 1 in 12 false negative rate also gives me pause, and kills the utility I'd envisioned of two people sitting on a bed testing together before sex...

(see my other comment for a link to CDC's pilot program of getting testing available in retail pharmacies)

[vvalkyri]

Hm. a 1 in 12 false negative makes me very very unhappy.

Anybody know what the accuracy rate is for the other quick tests? There was an article just a week or two back about CDC piloting a program to train pharmacy workers in administration and somewhat counseling. It seems like the far better choice.

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/national-hiv-testing-day/embargoed-hiv-testing-now-your-local-pharmacy

[desertdreams67]

Interesting!

[liyosa]

The low specificity rate really makes me uneasy though. Is it too much to ask to package the test in threes to assure a higher success rate? Or maybe not. Doing a test three times for anything is a pain in the butt for anybody. This includes me, and probably a lot of other people.

I'm still hoping for a home test of anything, really (faecal occult tests, ELISA antibody tests, and so on) that is easy to use and has a really high specificity and sensitivity...

Still, definitely a step in the right direction. I can only hope that people will read the 1/12 negative reading, as that is really quite high...