Over-the-counter HIV Tests on the Way

[Guest fountainhall]

Despite what we all know about the importance of getting regular HIV tests so that drug therapy treatment can start in the disease's early stages, there are still a lot of msm who, for one reason or another, fail to get tested.

 

One reason is probably a sort-of fear factor - if I don't know, maybe there's less chance of my being infected(!). Another is the fear that perhaps anonymous testing is not all that anonymous and that my name will get its way onto an Immigration list. I am sure there are others.

 

Now, though, like the home pregnancy test before it, a panel of experts has approved a home HIV-testing kit. It is, they say, both safe and effective, although they do add "its potential to prevent infections outweighs the risk of false results."

 

The FDA in the US will decide later this year if the test is to be approved.

 

OraSure said the home test could retail for less than $60 (£37) if approved.

 

To take the test, the user swabs the outer gum area so the oral fluid, which is not the same as saliva, can be checked for the HIV virus.

 

The test provides results within about 20 minutes, but experts say the results should be confirmed with a blood test, which is more accurate.

 

Last week, a separate FDA panel approved a drug called Truvada, which could become the first drug in tablet form to protect healthy people from the HIV virus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-18081933

[Guest thaiworthy]

The 20-minute test is 93% accurate for positive results

 

I'd hate to be one of the 7 who gets a false positive. However, the article does state it has phone numbers to call for advice and i would certainly want to be tested again, preferably at a clinic.

 

With my luck I could take a pregnancy test and get a positive on that as well. If it's a boy I'm going to name him Fountainhall, if it's a ladyboy I'm going to name her Michael, or mebbe Michelle. Fortunately for me, the odds of it being positive are greatly against me, and since i'm not showing yet, I'm not going to worry about it. And for that matter, I have absolutely no idea who the father is! I do know it isn't Bob. He nods off after the first kiss.

[Rogie]

OraSure said the home test could retail for less than $60 (£37) if approved.

 

I admit I haven't clicked on that link, but alarm bells ring concerning the cost of this test. In Britain, and hopefully in country's such as the US and Canada, testing at an accredited heath clinic is free, and, whilst not completely anonymous, you are given the option to keep the result confidentIal (i.e your GP does not get to know). As those who might well baulk at paying $60 are likely to be those least able to afford it, my feeling is this 'home test' is unlikely to hold much appeal to the very people most at risk.

[bkkguy]

my feeling is this 'home test' is unlikely to hold much appeal to the very people most at risk.

 

like the home pregnancy test this test is not targeting people "most at risk", it is targeting those who want or need results outside the system for whatever, perhaps spurious, reasons - and they will always find the money for the test!

 

Now, though, like the home pregnancy test before it, a panel of experts has approved a home HIV-testing kit. It is, they say, both safe and effective, although they do add "its potential to prevent infections outweighs the risk of false results."

 

to be fair the panel only "recommended" approval - though the FDA usually follows the recomendations of it's expert panels - and the panel and most commentators have expressed reservaions about the accuracy of the test compared to other methods

 

one of the classic uses of the test I think will be those who want to "know" that their anonymous pickup for the night is "safe" before proceeding to perhaps "unsafe" sex - so given the inability of most of the population to correctly understand the concepts of risk and statistics; and to correctly interpret statements like "the 20-minute test is 93% accurate for positive results"; and even to understand the time lag between being infected, being infectious and returning a positive result; I would beg to differ with the expert opinion that "its potential to prevent infections outweighs the risk of false results."

 

bkkguy