OraQuick HIV test kit for home use.

[NastyRigPig]

I don't know all the intricacies of the OraQuick at home HIV test, so maybe someone on this board will know.

If you are HIV + and currently show undetectable due to taking meds, would this test show a neg result if some trick were trying to sero sort?

Interesting thought, because lets say a bottom gets a stable of tested 'neg' tops, but some of them just test neg due to meds. If they go off meds, that bottom might be in for a shock.

However, I have no way of knowing if this is how it works or not.

[RedDog80]

I could be wrong, but from what I understand, these and other tests that use saliva for testing check for HIV anti-bodies, not a viral load. So even though someone is undetectable because of meds, they would still test positive with the OraQuick at home HIV test, since your body is still producing anti-bodies to fight the HIV.

[GermanFucker]

OraQuick, like the standard ELISA screening test done at laboratories, is an antibody test. That means that it doesn't show your viral load, but rather your immune response to HIV. Also oral tests are not quite as sensitive as a laboratory test. There are two possible scenarios where your immune response is reduced to a level, where an oral test might show a false negative:

a.) End-stage AIDS when the immune system is completely wiped out.

b.) After many years of RELIGIOUSLY taking one's meds and being undetectable, so there is nothing to do for the immune system itself, antibody titers will also drop, just like a vaccination will wear off after a decade or so.

From what I read it is possible that after around 10 YEARS of therapy some oral tests begin to show false negatives, whereas blood tests will still test poz. Going off meds should quickly reactivate the immune response and lead to a quick spike in antibodies, reversing the effect of long time HAART.

So a false negative is not something I would bet on.

[NegRawBottom]

I'd agree with RedDog80 and GermanFucker: it's an antibody test. As they note in their disclaimers and warnings, though:

- A positive result with this test does not mean that you are definitely infected with HIV, but rather that additional testing should be done in a medical setting.

- A negative result with this test does not mean that you are definitely not infected with HIV, particularly when exposure may have been within the previous 3 months.

So while it's helpful in serosorting, if you're barebacking, you're still taking your chances. The test will help, obviously, and I use it in between my screenings at the doctor's office, but it's still subject to the limitations all such tests have: you have to wait for the possibility of seroconversion after infection to be sure of whether or not you're infected.

Please note that this won't change my behavior, but it's still nice to know -- approximately, at least -- what your one-on-one partner(s) status is/are. If you're at a gloryhole or in a dark room, then all bets -- just like all condoms -- are off.

[TattPig]

The distinction that GermanFucker makes is a bit imprecise. "Also oral tests are not quite as sensitive as a laboratory test." There are common tests that use oral samples for laboratory testing--OraSure, for instance (by the same manufacturer as OraQuick). The oral sample is sent to a lab for confirmatory testing; it's just as good as a blood sample. The problem with the rapid oral test isn't that it is less sensitive. The problem is that it can produce false positives.

The tests look for antibodies that your system has produced. They do not look for the virus itself. So even though someone is "undetectable" (which isn't really undetectable), the antibodies will still trigger the positive result.

The only false negatives I have ever heard of were in "the window", before the virus entered the bloodstream.

[top84]

My previous background was in the field of molecular biology, and the above advice is quite accurate. The kit looks for antibodies (ELISA, or Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, has been mentioned) and although highly unlikely to provide a false result, it can still happen.

As TattPig points out, there are circumstances here a false positive can be produced, and that is the drawback of a quick test as opposed to a more in-depth one. A false negative is hugely unlikely, but still possible if the kit were to be faulty or if infection has just occurred and the immune system has not yet produced an adaptive response to the virus (meaning no antibodies had been produced).

[vrsbbltn]

Just read that this kit yields results at home, not from a sample sent to a lab as I used to think.

I think this will not change our fucking habits of what was said, it's just a tool to have an idea, and get further/more professional aid.

Edited January 23, 2013 by vrsbbltn

[TxBBTop]

Here is another question about those oraquick home tests... i see them advertised alot so now do u think stealthing will become more common now that the health department wont find out about alot of the hiv poz people. Now less people will get tested at doctors and now they wont have to report it immediately.