OraQuick not very reliable after all?

[kwoof]

I ran across an interview recently with an HIV researcher from UCSF who did a study that found the OraQuick fluid test to not be very sensitive.  The study focused on acute cases, which makes no sense to me as the tests are not licensed for that, but he made it clear that the blood test actually performed somewhat well.  However, my concern was this:

"The first was that oral fluid testing -- using the OraQuick Advance device on a oral fluid swab -- detected only about 86% of all of the cases of HIV that were actually present at testing. And this is because it missed not only all of the acute HIV infections in that 14%, but also some antibody positive infections that turned out to be positive on standard -- other antibody tests and on the western blot. So we identified that the OraQuick had not performed very well when we used oral fluid."

I have never read about it not picking up infections that other antibody tests would, just early infections.  I wish he would have been more specific, such as, were those individuals on HAART?  Anyway, it's statements such as this that greatly worry me and call into question any negative results from OraQuick.  How could this have possibly happened?

[Teak]

Your question was answered.

[kwoof]

I am sorry, I just wanted the opinions of all the various experts.  I still don't understand why the study (and it was a study - the article was about the study) found positive individuals who weren't detected by the oral test; no one will address this part.  He states they weren't acute, but didn't say if they were past 6-12 weeks.  The "I don't mean to imply it's not a good test" line is BS after matter-of-factly claiming it didn't pick up a few people who had antibodies.  Why will no one directly address this part?  I don't understand.

[blokecalledkev]

What concerns me is how people read something and totally fail to understand what it is saying. This article, not a report, specifically states it is for HIGH RISK.

It also states

"I don't mean to imply that the OraQuick oral fluid test isn't a good test. In fact, I think it has potentially a very important role in a lot of testing settings. I just would emphasize that the use of oral fluid testing in very high-risk settings, such as these high-risk testing programs in San Francisco needs probably to be backed up by the use of some other more sensitive test in addition to make sure that patients don't have acute infection."

If you want to fuel your anxiety by misreading an article please do so, please don't ask others to join you. If you are the same guy that posted your misrepresentation of this article on another  HIV forum I will repeat here what I said there “Stop fear mongering.”

[Teak]

Use a condom correctly and consistently for anal and vaginal penetrative sex and you won't have to worry about testing.

[kwoof]

They were saying that the non-oral antibody tests and Western Blot picked up infections that the oral test did not, though.  I wish they'd be more specific when issuing dangerous statements.

Thanks.  I'm fairly confident that I didn't, but most testing centers use the OraQuick oral test, so any time in the future that I test, I will be nervous about it.

[Teak]

You have never had an exposure.

[Teak]

The conclusion were that clinics were not following the correct testing guidelines as issued by OralSure Tech. You need to test 3 months post exposure and as far as a Western Blot it too is done 3 months post exposure on all positive test results.

[kwoof]

It was a study from 2009, though.  I'm not sure if URLs are allowed to be posted here, but here it is: http://www.thebody.com/content/art50558.html

It is the "also some antibody positive infections that turned out to be positive on standard -- other antibody tests and on the western blot" statement that concerns me.

[Teak]

Outdated information.