A new over-the-counter test for HIV that people can use in the privacy of their homes could boost detection of the virus, but also leave the newly diagnosed without crucial counseling, according to Maine HIV/AIDS prevention groups.
The OraQuick test, approved last week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, uses a mouth swab and produces results within 20 to 40 minutes. It’s expected to hit drugstore and supermarket shelves, as well as online retailers, by October.
Another HIV home test was previously available over the counter that required users to prick a finger and mail a drop of blood to a lab for testing.
The OraQuick test, available without a prescription, likely will appeal to those reluctant to visit a clinic for testing, said Patti Capouch, executive director of the Frannie Peabody Center in Portland, an HIV/AIDS organization serving Cumberland and York counties.
“There are some people that don’t want to come into a facility and do it; they’d rather do it at home,” she said. “If that gets more people to test, that’s great, because everybody should know their status.”
Of the roughly 1,500 people living with HIV and AIDS in Maine, it’s estimated that several hundred don’t know they’re infected, said Sean Weber, program manager at Eastern Maine AIDS Network. OraQuick may be especially welcomed in rural parts of the state located far from clinics that test for HIV, he said.
Despite the benefits of the home test, Capouch said she’s worried that those who get a positive result won’t be connected with a local doctor, as they are when they’re tested through her organization and others in the state.
OraSure Technologies, the Pennsylvania company that manufactures OraQuick, plans to staff a 24-hour hotline to help consumers administer the test and offer guidance on what to do after learning the results.
It remains to be seen whether the hotline’s staff will be well-informed about HIV/AIDS resources in Maine, Capouch said.
“Getting a positive result is really something you need a professional to talk you through and help link you to medical care,” she said.
The test detects the presence of antibodies to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. When administered by consumers, researchers found the test to be accurate 92 percent of the time in people who have the virus, versus 99.98 percent of the time in people who are not infected.
In other words, about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive result, while about one in 12 could get a false negative, according to an FDA press release.
A positive test should be followed up with additional testing in a doctor’s office to confirm, the agency said.
A version of the test was approved for use by trained technicians in 2004.
Because it can take up to three months for antibodies to develop after a person is infected with HIV, people who use OraQuick may not know they’re testing too early, Weber said.
He’s anxious to see how clear the test’s instructions are and worries that people may miss out on important HIV/AIDS education, he said.
“We talk to them about things like safer sex, abstaining, not sharing drugs, all that stuff that puts them at a higher risk,” Weber said. “That’s where we’re a little leery, because they’re not going to get any pre- and post-test counseling. And are they going to be doing the test correctly?”
The test is expected to cost less than $60. Weber’s organization charges $30, “but we still test them if they don’t have the money,” he said.
As of May, Maine recorded 23 new cases of HIV/AIDS across the state, Weber said. That doesn’t include three new positive cases his organization has seen over the last few weeks.
Nationally, about 50,000 new cases of HIV are reported every year, many transmitted by people who don’t know they’re infected, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Excuse the pun, but this bleeding edge technology has nowhere near a safe margin of error. “[…] one in 12 could get a false negative”, is a not medically or statistically relevant.
I’m surprised that the FDA approved it. Imagine what it would be like if the FAA and DOT accepted that margin of error.
Note that followup tests, more accurate, are suggested.
Saliva? I thought the consensus now was that it couldn’t be transmitted by saliva (which I never believed). Not so long ago drug addicts and homosexuals would spit at police officers, and the scare was that the officer would be infected. Then the government told us that we didn’t have to worry about being infected in this manner. Was this just to avoid a panic?
If this test is through saliva then it can be transmitted through saliva. What about biting insects? If an insect is drawing blood from an infected person, and is interrupted, then lands on another person to draw blood, why couldn’t that transmit the disease? Ever had a bug fly into your eye or mouth? What if it was full of blood from an infected person?
Sounds like a little hysteria on your part. You would have to drink roughly 4 gallons of saliva to risk catching HIV/AIDS from it, and you don’t have to start fearing HIV/AIDS from every insect bite you get. Rather than sitting here and trying to explain all the details of transmission/infection, I suggest you check out any one of the many sources for HIV/AIDS information. Thousands of people in every state are living with HIV and don’t know it. Many people choose to never test themselves, out of embarrassment, due to the stigma surrounding the disease. There needs to be an option for people to test themselves in the comfort and privacy of their own environment. If this technology saves one life, or a person from being infected, then it is completely worth it.
“No so long ago…” — That sounds incredibly made up. Like you can tell that someone is gay or addicted to drugs by looking at them? Like all gay people and drug addicts have HIV?
Don`t worry a new and worse plague will pop up soon.
You claim, “If this test is through saliva then it can be transmitted through saliva.”
Where is your degree? I can think of many cases where we can test for the presence of a virus by detecting our body’s reaction to it; in other words, HIV’s presence in the body could be detected by evidence found in saliva, though the virus cannot spread from saliva.
It’s about time there was a home test. There is set of realities involved here:
If you are taking the test, you aren’t sure of your last partner — or someone in the last string of encounters.1. A positive, could be a positive, either way, it means stop encounters until you get tested properly.2. A negative could be a false negative — but, face reality, you were concerned enough to test yourself. Plan on doing it again next month … and probably again and again until your next routine physical & blood test.REMEMBER: More Heterosexuals have HIV/AIDS than Gays & Addicts combined. Transmission follows many routes — some are known, but unnoticed when they occur.If you aren’t sure, get a home test, or donate blood every four months — in which case, while your concerns might be groundless, you are doing something which can save a life. Of course, the latter will require you to acknowledge a same sex contact, or transfusion, body art / piercing, or having spent time in Europe or Africa … etc.
It’s good that science is developing new techniques to detect HIV/AIDS, and it’s even better that research is uncovering new approaches to treat the disease. As a society, we need to do all we can to support these efforts to prevent the disease from ruining and ending lives.
In addition to monetary support, another way we must do so is by encouraging preventative measures, especially since the disease can (and does) mutate and render treatments ineffective. It goes without saying that such measures must involve encouraging certain behaviors and discouraging others. Abstinence, monogamous sexual behavior, and the use of protection are among the measures we should encourage. Promiscuity, injection drug use, and the lack of protection are all measures we should discourage.
I doubt anyone reading this comment string would disagree. On the other hand, there’s much disagreement on how society should deal with the primary means by which the disease is spread. That means is men having sex with men or MSM. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), MSM account for about 50% of all HIV/AIDS in the U.S. even though they comprise only about 2% of the population, and are up to 44 times more likely to contract the disease than straight men (1,2). Further, according to this same source, about 1 in 5 gay men have HIV but don’t even know it.
The solution to this problem proposed by some is gay marriage because it will promote monogamy among homosexuals. This belief is fatally flawed though because the facts do not support it, which is why gay marriage must be opposed and not endorsed. Indeed, due to several reasons, legally recognizing gay marriage would only worsen the problems of same-sex behavior instead of lessening them.
The first reason concerns the nature and origin of homosexuality. Unlike gender and race, homosexuality is not due solely to genetics. Rather, it is due to a complex mix of genetic, biologic, and social/cultural factors that vary in significance among individuals. Further, unlike in race and gender, these factors do not guarantee a homosexual outcome (3). Instead, they impart a greater tendency for the homosexual urge to develop, which happens even though the majority of homosexuals don’t recall choosing to have this urge.
The genetic and biologic components of homosexuality are not something we (as a society) can control or rectify – at least not now. What we can control is the social/cultural aspect and doing so means opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The reason is because society holds marriage and what occurs within it and on which it is based – sexual relations – in high esteem. Consequently, we encourage it with legal recognition and incentives and, by extension, the dating activities or the heterosexual attraction that leads to marriage.
Legally recognizing gay marriage would have the same affirmative impact on homosexuality and same-sex behavior. Thus, people who are vulnerable to becoming homosexual are more likely to become so, and those who are already homosexual are more likely to engage in same-sex behavior. Neither outcome is beneficial not only because of the reasons cited earlier but because gay marriage would not mitigate the other problems of same-sex behavior.
The second of these problems is the instability of homosexual relationships, even if they’re legally recognized by the government. In committed relationships, its common for homosexuals to have multiple partners, in addition to the committed one, over as little as 1 ½ years (4,5). Within these relationships there’s an even greater potential to transmit HIV/AIDS, since homosexuals mistakenly believe they can forego protective measures within them like heterosexuals can. Additionally, homosexual relationships are far more fleeting and likely to dissolve than heterosexual ones – a condition that extends to marriage. In jurisdictions that recognize gay marriage, homosexuals are far more likely to divorce than heterosexuals being 1.4 times more likely if they’re male and to 3 times more likely if they’re female.
Thus, because of the instability inherent in homosexual relationships, and the origins for homosexuality and same-sex behavior, gay marriage would do little to nothing in mitigating the spread of HIV/AIDS or other diseases with which same-sex behavior is associated. For these reasons, opposing the legal recognition of gay marriage must one of the preventative measures we pursue in helping to reduce the spread of the disease, so that we can offer research a better chance at eventually eradicating it.
References:
1. CDC Fact Sheet, “HIV in the Unisted States: At a Glance,” March 2012.
2. CDC, “HIV Prevention in the United States: High Impact Prevention, Saving Lives and Money,” August 2011
3. Långström, N., Rahman, Q., Carlström, E., Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden . Archives of Sexual Behavior, Online Version (90), No. 27
4. Xiridou M, Geskus R, de Wit J, Coutinho R, Kretzschmar M, “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038 (p. 1031)
5. Are Gay Male Couples Monogamous Ever After? Psychology Today, September 16, 2008.
6. Andersson, et.al., 2006. “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden,” Demography, Volume 43-1, February 1996: 79-98
You claim the instability of same-sex relationships is a reason to oppose encouraging stability in same-sex relationships?
That’s some sadistic, twisted logic to stand in opposition to the equal treatment of other Mainers.
I think it’s clear that offering civil marriage will help encourage more stable relationships, but regardless it is important that we give equal protections to same-sex couples building lives and raising children together in Maine.
You either misunderstood what I wrote or are deliberately mischaracterizing it. The point is that same-sex relationships are unstable, whether they’re married or not. Thus, marriage would not solve the problem inherent in same-sex behavior – non-monogamy – which only exacerbates another problem: use of human physiology that’s not designed for same-sex behavior. Consequently, because gay marriage would not significantly address these two issues, homosexuals would remain at high risk for the bodily damage and disease to which same-sex behavior is associated.
Further, for the reasons mentioned in my first post, gay marriage would be a social influence that would trigger the capacity for homosexuality in some and encourage same-sex behavior. Consequently, not only would legally recogizing gay marriage diminish the institution below it’s already weakened state, it would also encourage a very unhealthy activity – same-sex behavior. Further, it’s not an appropriate behavior to be modeled for children. Thus, its imperative that people in Maine vote against the legal recognition of gay marriage.
Your point is a lie. I have been in a monogamous same sex relationship for decades. I know three other same sex couples personally who have been together for even longer, and most of my social circle is straight, not gay.
You are using statistics from a time when homosexuals were marginalized and given scant opportunity to settle down and form supportive bonds with the straight community, and concluding we should not be given such opportunities.
In other words, you are pretending that the benefits we fight for are meaningless, and using flawed reasoning to justify your irrational judgemental attitide toward opposing our equal treatment.
I think this is born from a deep-seated attitude you have that homosexals aren’t as human as heterosexuals– that is a repulsive attitude to have, but its evidence is right there when you claim human psychology won’t work with “our kind.”
The idea that same sex marriage would foil otherwise heterosexual relationships is pretty ignorant, too. Do you struggle to find attraction enough to the opposite sex to have meaningful relationships? If not, why would the ability to marry the same sex cause you to behave differently in your life?
“The solution to this problem proposed by some is gay marriage because it will promote monogamy among homosexuals. This belief is fatally flawed though because the facts do not support it, which is why gay marriage must be opposed and not endorsed. ”
Nice straw man. In fact, most proponents of Gay marriage cite equality as the central reason.
You seem to suggest that by legitimizing SSM, flood gates would be opened and problem exasperated. While a point can be made for such, the premise is ultimately still flawed. Any number of sociological conditions can be cited that ultimately result in social problems. One only needs to look at where divorce rates are the highest to see a correlations to economic indicators, education, religiosity, etc. Yet, no one suggests that we remove the ability for ‘at risk’ people to marry.
To the contrary of your point, perhaps the instability that you cite is a response to negative external societal pressures that once removed, would allow homosexuals to become more stable. For this case, allowing SSM would go a long way to improving the situation.
At face value, your conclusion that as a preventative measure, we should deny another human being of their dignity is flawed on many levels. Nice try though.
-J