Slashdot Mirror
FDA Approves HIV Home-Use Test Kit
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the first over-the-counter HIV test kit, allowing people to test themselves in private at home and get preliminary results in less than 30 minutes. The test, which works by detecting antibodies in a swab from the gums, should not be considered final — in trials, the test failed to detect HIV in 1 in every 12 patients known to be infected, and returned false positives in 1 in 5,000 cases. The new at-home test, called OraQuick, will be sold in supermarkets and pharmacies and manufacturer, OraSure, has not said how much the test will cost, only that it will be more than the $18 cost for the professional kit. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. with HIV, 1 in 5 is not aware of the infection and that a disproportionate number of the 50,000 new cases of HIV each year is linked to people who have not been tested. Chip Lewis, a spokesman for Whitman-Walker Health, which provides AIDS care in Washington, says at-home testing could reach some people who didn't want to go to a clinic but removing medical professionals from the process could cause problems. 'It's not like a home pregnancy test,' says Lewis. 'You need really a lot of information about how to read the test, how to use the test properly.'" Back in May, we reported that a panel of FDA experts recommended approval of an over-the-counter HIV test.
Nobody seems to have noticed the "best" thing about this test: it should be possible to use it on your partner. With or without their consent. So you can invite that random girl at the bar home for a drink and a swab, or secretly swab your boyfriend while he's sleeping, just in case he's lying to you about being clean.
Unethical? Yes. Unromantic? Yes. False sense of security? Yup. But potentially lifesaving? Also yes.
This seems like a really good idea in that a lot of people who really should get tested never will due to the stigma of going to a clinic.
On the other hand, it seems like now 1 in 12 will never go to a clinic because the home test gave them a clean bill of health when really, they were carrying the virus. I understand that a false positive is going to be hugely upsetting to the individual, but on a society-wide level, such a massive false negative rate is really much more concerning. In my opinion, it makes the test not only useless (as a high false-positive rate would) but counter-productive.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
... lest you guys start thinking that this kit is a heavenly sent, that you guys will be 100% protected ...
This test kit is only 92% accurate
While 8% does not seem to be a big number, it still matters in this case for AIDS is still incurable
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
People (as a group), who have proven themselves to be not the best logicians time and time again, will take this as proof they are in the clear and start spreading it around.
People who feel they need to use this test are already spreading it around. If this stops 11 of 12, that is a good thing. Just because something isn't perfect, doesn't make it worthless. Life is not black and white.
oh yea thats even better, rather than the local pharmacy know, now google, facebook and every single one of their ad whores know. a few hours later their friends start noticing "HIVStick" ad's on every page
I know he's trolling, but there's actually a ring of truth to it. Approximately half of all black homosexuals have HIV.
One study of five major cities found that nearly 50 percent of all Black gay and bisexual men were HIV-positive
Pretty staggering number.
source: (it's a PDF)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/NHAS.pdf
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
in night club/bar bathrooms.
It's 1:40 and you've hooked up with your last resort, you go back to your place but before you put yourselves at risk, take 5 minutes and show each other that you don't have HIV.
I say this is all around win!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This seems like a really good idea in that a lot of people who really should get tested never will due to the stigma of going to a clinic.
On the other hand, it seems like now 1 in 12 will never go to a clinic because the home test gave them a clean bill of health when really, they were carrying the virus. I understand that a false positive is going to be hugely upsetting to the individual, but on a society-wide level, such a massive false negative rate is really much more concerning. In my opinion, it makes the test not only useless (as a high false-positive rate would) but counter-productive.
And it's not just the fact that they won't go to a clinic for themselves, but now those 1 in 12 will proclaim to future partners "Don't worry, I'm clean, I was just tested". And if there's a biological reason that makes an individual more likely to get a false negative, this makes the problem even worse as he continues to get negative results, test after test despite being infected.
I'd feel better about this test if the false positive and false negative rates were reversed. Sending 1 out of 12 people to the doctor because they got a false positive (and missing just 1 out of 5000 actual HIV infections) sounds a lot better than the reverse.
The HIV rate in the US is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the country. The HIV infection rate is massive compared to pretty much every other rich country on the planet, for instance in Germany there are about 3,000 new cases per year, and considering Germanys population is roughly 1/4 of the USs, we can see that the US rate is over 3x as high as Germanys per capita. Why the huge disparity? Probably has something to do with the fact that in the US there are a large # of people who secretly want "sinners" to get infected as punishment for their "deviancy", we call these people Republicans.
We can see it in the massive farce that is "abstinence only" education, turns out kids are having sex anyway and since they cannot get, or do not have access to condoms(and have been told that they fail most of the time anyway) they are going about it without them. Results? Highest STDs and teen pregnancy rates in the rich world.
And lets not forget our hardon for "justice" that results in a massive # of people(mostly men) in prison at any given time, where, surprise surprise, HIV runs rampant. And perhaps related refusal to admit that people are going to shoot up, and if they do they should have clean needles ends up in a lot of drug users contracting HIV(a very large % of those infected with HIV in the US are also infected with hep-C, indicating that needle-born HIV infections in the US are much more common than other first-world countries)
And of course lets not forget the massive amount of homophobia that basically ensures a large # of homosexuals will be ostracized from their family and community, and thus have a very low level of self-worth. This translates into many gays engaging in self-destructive behavior in the US, including but not limited to risky sex.
Congrats Republicans, largets HIV infection in the rich world, you worked hard to get to this point, might as well celebrate.
Monstar L
Maybe he got it from the toilet seat?
To review, sensitivity is the probability of a positive result given that the tested individual is actually positive; specificity is the probability of a negative result given that the tested individual is actually negative. The OraQuick swab test has a rather low sensitivity, meaning that there is a roughly 1 in 12 chance that an HIV-positive individual incorrectly tests negative (type II error). But it has a relatively good specificity, meaning that there is a roughly 1 in 5000 chance that an HIV-negative individual incorrectly tests positive (type I error).
The value in granting FDA approval for OTC sales of OraQuick, then, is to address the need for the vast majority of the population, which is HIV-negative, to feel reassured that they are in fact negative. Historically, one of the biggest challenges in HIV education has been overcoming the fear and stigma of testing. Making testing available OTC greatly improves the likelihood of getting regularly tested.
But what of those pesky type II errors? Yes, given that an individual is actually HIV-positive, the chance that the test fails to detect is is 1 in 12. But that is NOT the same thing as saying that given a negative test result, the chance the person is actually HIV-positive is 1 in 12. For the general population, that probability is much smaller. In fact, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate the negative predictive value (which would require the prevalence of HIV in the US population). Now, if we were talking about using OraQuick on a very high-risk group, we would expect many more false negatives, so a more appropriate test would be the standard ELISA blood test, followed by a confirmatory Western Blot. But remember, FDA approval of OTC OraQuick is targeted at the general population. If you know you're in a high-risk group, you presumably would be getting regularly tested at a public health clinic, and OraQuick isn't necessarily your best choice. But it's still better than not getting tested at all.
Finally, remember that any reasonable person who tests positive with OraQuick would want a follow-up test to be sure. (Someone who tests negative, however, is much more unlikely to want a follow-up test.) So we don't really need to worry about type I errors, except for the panic and anxiety such a rare outcome might cause.
I don't get it. Yours is the third or fourth comment I've seen lamenting the failure rate. If you are sexually active, with multiple partners, you should be getting tested every 6 months minimum. With an over-the-counter version for about $20, I'm probably going to do it every month. (I'm a bit of a hypochondriac, but I do get laid occasionally.) I like to think of myself as unusually unlucky, but 6 times in a row? That is rather improbable.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math