HIV Testing at Home

[EZEtoGRU]

Yesterday in Houston, I saw a billboard sign that was promoting an HIV test that one can do at home. It said something about results in 20 minutes. Unfortunately I I not catch the name of the brand.

 

How long has this been around (especially with 20 minute results)? Does the medical community consider it to be a reliable manner of testing? Does it test a blood sample or mucus?

 

Anyone have more information?

[imrthr]

 

Yesterday in Houston, I saw a billboard sign that was promoting an HIV test that one can do at home. It said something about results in 20 minutes. Unfortunately I I not catch the name of the brand.

 

How long has this been around (especially with 20 minute results)? Does the medical community consider it to be a reliable manner of testing? Does it test a blood sample or mucus?

 

Anyone have more information?

 

 

Same test used in many doctors' offices -

 

http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/oraquick-in-home-hiv-test/ID=prod6118162-product?ext=gooVB-HIV_Care_Exact_VB-HIV_Care_Ora-Quick_Exact_orasure&sst=05e8ae94-52c8-1808-4376-00000c98222e

-

[+ Gar1eth]

Yesterday in Houston, I saw a billboard sign that was promoting an HIV test that one can do at home. It said something about results in 20 minutes. Unfortunately I I not catch the name of the brand.

 

How long has this been around (especially with 20 minute results)? Does the medical community consider it to be a reliable manner of testing? Does it test a blood sample or mucus?

 

Anyone have more information?

 

There are 2 but the one you probably mean is the Ora-Quick. It's been out about a year or so. You should be able to find it at any large pharmacy or even a grocery with a large pharmacy section. It tests saliva. There is a paddle that you rub across your gums. It's supposed to be fairly accurate.

 

There is also another one- HIV Express Test or something like that. It's been out longer. But in that one I believe it uses blood from a fingerstick- you send the sample back to them anonymously ( the box has a code enclosed with it) - and you call them up for the results in a day or two.

 

These are both antibody tests, so early infections won't show up. And positive results need to be confirmed by a Western Blot test (also an antibody test) or one of the newer tests which actually test for the HIV virus.

 

Gman

[doitb4ugo]

While the at home testing will over time provide an easier means of determining if a person has a possibility of being HIV+, a more accurate test is needed for positives to make a more reliable result. For guys who live in area where clinics provide these tests, my personal experience is that when the test shows a positive result, having a staff and counselors ready to assist you both in getting the next test and in helping you cope with what is very traumatic news....

 

I cleary remember the large number of couseling sessions Fenway Health provided me when I was diagnosed. I am not sure what I would have done had I tested myself and had to cope with bad news alone....Just another thought on what is a good advancement in testing for HIV....

[+ Charlie]

In the 1980s, I was a volunteer with a gay health organization that offered free HIV tests. We had a rule that test results could be given only by a professional counselor, in person, to the client who had been tested. Being told that you have tested positive, even tentatively with the initial test, is upsetting for most people, who need accurate information right away about what that diagnosis means, and what they need to do next. Without counseling, a false positive may cause someone to act out in self-destructive ways. A negative initial test may also give false reassurance, and cause someone to behave carelessly afterwards. I would not recommend that anyone casually self-administer such a test, no matter how easy it may be to do it.

[+ Gar1eth]

I will have to disagree. It's not that I don't understand your point. I do- and it's a good one. But often people have limited time. Sometimes they can't get to a testing center easily. For those who can handle the information or are fairly sure they are negative, but maybe had one slip up in safe sex 3 to 4 months prior, the home test is very useful.

 

Gman

[rickp]

Last week, I had a client ask me to use one of these for the first time. He asked me if it would be okay over the phone, and then provided the test himself. It was relatively quick and painless, about 20 minutes just like the box says. Of course, we continued to practice only safer sex afterwards, even though the test results were negative.

[imrthr]

 

In the 1980s, I was a volunteer with a gay health organization that offered free HIV tests. We had a rule that test results could be given only by a professional counselor, in person, to the client who had been tested. Being told that you have tested positive, even tentatively with the initial test, is upsetting for most people, who need accurate information right away about what that diagnosis means, and what they need to do next. Without counseling, a false positive may cause someone to act out in self-destructive ways. A negative initial test may also give false reassurance, and cause someone to behave carelessly afterwards. I would not recommend that anyone casually self-administer such a test, no matter how easy it may be to do it.

-

-

Many advances have been made and many things have changed since the 1980s when you were a volunteer.

 

With respect to the 20-minute self administered HIV test discussed, I assume that you are aware the test is approved by the FDA.

 

The test is not some questionable internet HIV test bought from some foreign country, like is still available and sold so often.

 

The discussed 20-minute test may not be what everyone wants. However, using such a test kit is a choice that is now available to those who desire an anonymous self-administered test rather than go through the procedures of a doctor visit or health clinic.

 

Face it, there are people who refuse to visit a doctor or a health clinic for the purpose of knowing their HIV status. The dangerous members of our society are those who do not know their status and refuse to find out their status.

 

According to the CDC uninformed people cause 54-70% of the 56,300 new HIV infections annually.

 

While it is true that bad news from the self-administered test could be alarming, is it less alarming if the same negative news is received from a person rather than from reading a test result? Bad news is bad news.

 

The test kit offers information to the user in the event of a “positive” result.

 

Our world is filled with choices. I am all for choice. If we all march in lockstep and must be buffered by a third party intermediary, that is one less choice we can make.

 

I send kudos to the FDA for approving this test and to the manufacturer for developing the test.

[+ Charlie]

I realize that many things concerning HIV have changed since the 1980s, but people haven't. I qualified my comment by saying that I did not recommend CASUALLY self-administering a test, of any kind. If someone is knowledgeable about HIV and the implications of the test, and is emotionally prepared to deal with the results, whatever they may be, then of course he should be able to take the test on his own. But many people who take it will not fit that description, and many people do not read carefully--or read at all--the informational material that comes with it. I am aware of too many cases in which someone became hysterical on learning of an initial positive result, and others who said "Hooray! I'm negative!" and went out to celebrate by doing something unsafe. By the way, the person who gave the client his test result was always a professional counselor, not just an office clerk.

[corndog]

Last week, I had a client ask me to use one of these for the first time. He asked me if it would be okay over the phone, and then provided the test himself. It was relatively quick and painless, about 20 minutes just like the box says. Of course, we continued to practice only safer sex afterwards, even though the test results were negative.

 

I think this is very interesting.

 

I wonder about the client's state-of-mind in making this request, and your attitude about compliing. On one hand, I feel like the client was naive to think that any kind of HIV test would provide reassurance, but I also understand his desire to do the test. I like to think that I operate under the assumption that anyone that I'm with is HIV+, but at the same time, I admit that I'd have trouble getting sexual with someone that I KNOW is HIV+. This makes me feel like a hypocrite.

[doitb4ugo]

Consider yourself risk-adverse not a hypocrite....there is nothing wrong with wanting to be safe. Being HIV+ I find many guys who just do not want to take the added risk...both hookups and escorts. That is your and their perogative....

[imrthr]

 

I wonder about the client's state-of-mind in making this request, and your attitude about compliing. On one hand, I feel like the client was naive to think that any kind of HIV test would provide reassurance, but I also understand his desire to do the test. I like to think that I operate under the assumption that anyone that I'm with is HIV+, but at the same time, I admit that I'd have trouble getting sexual with someone that I KNOW is HIV+. This makes me feel like a hypocrite.

-

 

Like you, perhaps the client operates “under the assumption that anyone” he has sex with is HIV+. A quick oral HIV test that produces negative results can be comforting to some clients.

 

Again, like you, perhaps the client would have trouble getting sexual with someone that he knows is HIV+.

 

Although it is true that a recent infection would probably not be detected with the test, the client, at least, would have a high percentage of probability and assurance that the escort was not HIV+ up until the last few months. That knowledge is more comforting than not knowing or taking someone’s word about his status.

 

Modern HIV tests are a lot more sensitive than they were a few years ago. The newer non-invasive antibody tests can pick up antibodies as soon as four to six weeks after infection. Nonetheless, the CDC continues to say the window period is six months or more even though most physicians who practice with HIV and AIDS say six months is far too long for someone to develop detectable antibodies.

-

[+ newatthis]

...By the way, the person who gave the client his test result was always a professional counselor, not just an office clerk.

Charlie --

 

I don't know how common the following experience is, but it certainly undermines the idea of giving out the results in person. Having been informed that a sexual partner of mine had just tested positive for syphilis, I hurried over to the best-known gay men's health clinic in town for a test. Since I was there, I opted for complete std testing, including HIV. I was told that I could get all my test results except HIV over the phone. When I phoned in, I said something like "I understand I can't get my HIV result over the phone." The response? "That's right, but when you come in for it, you'll be happy with the result." Needless to say, I didn't bother making the trip.

[+ LIguy]

I have used the Ora-Quik twice since it's been on the market. I have been trying to get tested every 6 months and in the past year or so it's nearly impossible to find a testing site on the weekends. If my test should come back positive then of course I would seek professional care.

[+ Gar1eth]

I have used the Ora-Quik twice since it's been on the market. I have been trying to get tested every 6 months and in the past year or so it's nearly impossible to find a testing site on the weekends. If my test should come back positive then of course I would seek professional care.

 

LI - I am assuming you are live in Long Island ( and not Lithuania). At this website, I found multiple clinics with Saturday hours in New York State.

 

http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/std/clinics/county_list.htm

 

Gman

[Steven_Draker]

... and others who said "Hooray! I'm negative!" and went out to celebrate by doing something unsafe.

 

I've encountered the opposite effect: people saying "I have to be extra careful, because there are no second chances here".

 

As another poster pointed out above, sometimes the clinics don't follow the rules and give out the results over the phone rather than in person. I know someone who forced a clerk's hand and got his results over the phone, because he was so anxious and couldn't wait till Monday.

 

I tend to think that a positive result would be better handled in a medical environment with a doctor and proper psychological support.

[Steven_Draker]

Last week, I had a client ask me to use one of these for the first time. He asked me if it would be okay over the phone, and then provided the test himself. It was relatively quick and painless, about 20 minutes just like the box says. Of course, we continued to practice only safer sex afterwards, even though the test results were negative.

 

I have no problem taking the Ora-Quick test should someone asked me to test. I can understand that some people need that extra reassurance and peace of mind. The question whether that extra security is real is a different matter, for reason already mentioned above.

 

If I remember correctly in some States in the USA one has obligation to disclose his status to his partner before any sexual relation. Correct me if I'm wrong.