Aa
Oraquick Test Results accuracy
hi everyone. i wanted to know if any of you had seen the latest hiv rapid test study done in seattle, wa in regards to the accuracy of the oraquick hiv rapid test? was this study concerning the oral rapid test or the blood test? the report was not really clear in which test this study was done on. dr. hhh mentioned he thought it was the blood test. but after reading the report again, it would appear that the study was in regards to the oral test. can i trust my test results of negative. i tested out to about 11 months negative. my tests were rapid blood tests. can i trust the results? please help.. thanks
A few comments:
1) The actual study said that "OraQuick used finger-stick blood samples or oral fluids, depending on the testing site." I trust the actual study over random people you have spoken to on the phone. Here is the link to the study abstract. Please read it: http://www.hivtestingconference.org/abstracts/abstract4.pdf
2) Oraquick Advance only has one HIV1 antibody in the test (gp41). ELISA tests include other proteins such as p24, gp120/160 etc. You can find this info easily online. Dont assume. Look it up.
3) The study compared the Oraquick test to first and second generation elisa (not 3rd) and found even the early ELISA was better.
4) Teak: I would think that the study used OraquickAdvance because some of the tests were done on oral fluid.
5) Timelord: Studies take more than two years to do. If a study took less time that would be shocking. Do you really think testing has changed since 2005?
1) The actual study said that "OraQuick used finger-stick blood samples or oral fluids, depending on the testing site." I trust the actual study over random people you have spoken to on the phone. Here is the link to the study abstract. Please read it: http://www.hivtestingconference.org/abstracts/abstract4.pdf
2) Oraquick Advance only has one HIV1 antibody in the test (gp41). ELISA tests include other proteins such as p24, gp120/160 etc. You can find this info easily online. Dont assume. Look it up.
3) The study compared the Oraquick test to first and second generation elisa (not 3rd) and found even the early ELISA was better.
4) Teak: I would think that the study used OraquickAdvance because some of the tests were done on oral fluid.
5) Timelord: Studies take more than two years to do. If a study took less time that would be shocking. Do you really think testing has changed since 2005?
hey ther everyone. Just got back home. I wanted to inform everyone that I talked with an HIV specialist at a well known clinic, I will not name names or locations, but it was a popular clinic in the south. Anyway, I spoke with this gentleman at length and just asked him bluntly about that study in Seattle. I asked him if he had heard about it. And he said "yes, I know the study you are talking about" "he told me the what the entire study revealed, and it is as I interpreted it as being. Here are the facts....
This study was conducted and revealed the Oraquick Rapid test not being as accurate on specimens of people who were not out of their window period... testing too early..such as a few days or a couple of weeks... meaning, that people who were not outside of their window period might not have a difinitive and conclusive result.... well.. that right there tells it all.. patients not getting tested after 3 months..RULES NOT FOLLOWED.... and it also reveals that the test has its limits at picking up early infections.. well.. that is what Orasure and every other rapid test manufacturer states... "you must be out of your window period for an accurate result (3 months)..
I also asked the gentleman on the phone about which test this study was conducted on..I asked him repeatedly... he replied... "The Oral rapid test". He stated that the blood test was a better mode of testing and a more accurate testing means...
Anyway, people, I think this entire study has done nothing but upset a lot of people for no reason at all...
First and foremost.. I have been told by 3 different agencies... the Health Dept in WA that conducted the study, Orasure Technologies and a very reputable HIV clinic in the south that this study was on the oral fluids version of Oraquick...
and also let me add... We also know that from reading the CONCLUSION of the test, the PPT slideshow online that the study was about EARLY INFECTION... or people testing too early before the window period had ended. The gentleman at the clinic today that I called also told me this when he was describing the study...I told him I had tested repeatedly with the blood fingerstick Oraquick and it was up to 18 months... he said, "You are NEGATIVE"
So, to sum up everything.. If you tested outside of the 3 month window period and received a negative result... YOU ARE NEGATIVE... END OF STORY, PERIOD...!! Whether it was an Oral Rapid or Blood Rapid... Orasure is state of the art...and has a 99% accuracy record (IF THE PROPER RULES ARE FOLLOWED (window period 3 months)
I think a lot of this comes up to the general public not being able to read the results of a test study correctly and panicking.. Heck, I didn't even understand the test study either until I read it closely.. of course, I will be the first to say that the press release study story that was released was poorly written and did not give a good enough description of what it was all about.. "Oral test and testing too early"
the veterans of this forum Teak, Lizzie Lou you are all CORRECT..when you tell people to move on...
it is like the man at Oraquick stated yesterday in regards to this study.. and he was correct. he stated " This was an isolated case" well, it makes since when you think about it... Follow the 3 month window period rule and test then, and the test performs properly... You have to follow the rules...
Anyway, we all need to move on from this...if you tested on or after 3 months.. you are fine..anyway, I hope this helps ease some minds.. I am the first one to panic, but after speaking to all the experts I have spoken to on this matter,. I feel 100% at ease now..
If anyone else knows anything else, please add... I hope this helps you guys..
This study was conducted and revealed the Oraquick Rapid test not being as accurate on specimens of people who were not out of their window period... testing too early..such as a few days or a couple of weeks... meaning, that people who were not outside of their window period might not have a difinitive and conclusive result.... well.. that right there tells it all.. patients not getting tested after 3 months..RULES NOT FOLLOWED.... and it also reveals that the test has its limits at picking up early infections.. well.. that is what Orasure and every other rapid test manufacturer states... "you must be out of your window period for an accurate result (3 months)..
I also asked the gentleman on the phone about which test this study was conducted on..I asked him repeatedly... he replied... "The Oral rapid test". He stated that the blood test was a better mode of testing and a more accurate testing means...
Anyway, people, I think this entire study has done nothing but upset a lot of people for no reason at all...
First and foremost.. I have been told by 3 different agencies... the Health Dept in WA that conducted the study, Orasure Technologies and a very reputable HIV clinic in the south that this study was on the oral fluids version of Oraquick...
and also let me add... We also know that from reading the CONCLUSION of the test, the PPT slideshow online that the study was about EARLY INFECTION... or people testing too early before the window period had ended. The gentleman at the clinic today that I called also told me this when he was describing the study...I told him I had tested repeatedly with the blood fingerstick Oraquick and it was up to 18 months... he said, "You are NEGATIVE"
So, to sum up everything.. If you tested outside of the 3 month window period and received a negative result... YOU ARE NEGATIVE... END OF STORY, PERIOD...!! Whether it was an Oral Rapid or Blood Rapid... Orasure is state of the art...and has a 99% accuracy record (IF THE PROPER RULES ARE FOLLOWED (window period 3 months)
I think a lot of this comes up to the general public not being able to read the results of a test study correctly and panicking.. Heck, I didn't even understand the test study either until I read it closely.. of course, I will be the first to say that the press release study story that was released was poorly written and did not give a good enough description of what it was all about.. "Oral test and testing too early"
the veterans of this forum Teak, Lizzie Lou you are all CORRECT..when you tell people to move on...
it is like the man at Oraquick stated yesterday in regards to this study.. and he was correct. he stated " This was an isolated case" well, it makes since when you think about it... Follow the 3 month window period rule and test then, and the test performs properly... You have to follow the rules...
Anyway, we all need to move on from this...if you tested on or after 3 months.. you are fine..anyway, I hope this helps ease some minds.. I am the first one to panic, but after speaking to all the experts I have spoken to on this matter,. I feel 100% at ease now..
If anyone else knows anything else, please add... I hope this helps you guys..
well, I feel wholeheartedly in the fact that Orasure is going to have the best tests possible. Why would they be making a test that only searches for gp41. Do you think that they are gonna be putting out inferior quality tests? Orasure has done study after study and comparisons after comparisons with the EIA test or ELISA test.. heck even the EIA test misses some infections in early stages..Does that mean they need to post a study about the EIA or ELISA and discredit it??? I think what has happened is that a lot of people are looking at a test study that we know nothing about. I called the phone number that I posted above yesterday and the gentleman I spoke to told me that it only involved the oral version of the test, I feel he knows what he is talking about. And besides, like teak or someone else mentioned that this study was for early detection problems.. If one has been tested numerous times, I find it hard to believe that every test would miss an infection. I also do not believe that oraquick is gonna make a test that is not reliable. Also wasn't some of this study done back in 2005... come on..thats a long time ago.. that is 3 years ago..My tests were done in 2007-2008. Anyway, if anyone else wants to know... call the number I posted above and ask them about it. They will tell you it was in regards to the oral test only and also call orasure, they will tell you the same.. teak, you are correct.
At any rate... I think people are jumping the gun on this "study" I read the PPT and it was hard to understand, but I did gather enuff info from it to know that they only mentioned the oral test in the study press release and also in the PPT file it only mentioned infections missed in EARLY STAGES.. maybe during the window period.. Anyway, the man that I talked to on the phone yesterday understood fully that the press release of the study did not stress that it was in regards to the oral version, but he was going to discuss it with his higher ups on trying to get a correction made.
Anyway, If there are any doctors that frequent this forum and I am sure they do, maybe they can fill us in on some more information...but I am, skeptical when a study is released with information about tests that were conducted in 2005, and that is what this study was in regards to, 2005... a long way back.. In my way of thinking, I would think that it would not involve people who has tests done recently... Like teak said.. there is a difference in Oraquick and Oraquick Advance..
Anyway, I will anxiously await any more responses..but read the study again on the press release.. where does it say anything about the blood tests?? it only mentions the oral test...
teak, I do believe you are FULLY CORRECT.
Anyway, call them and ask them about it...see what they have to say...They will talk to you.. they were very nice at Orasure and the Seattle location I called.
At any rate... I think people are jumping the gun on this "study" I read the PPT and it was hard to understand, but I did gather enuff info from it to know that they only mentioned the oral test in the study press release and also in the PPT file it only mentioned infections missed in EARLY STAGES.. maybe during the window period.. Anyway, the man that I talked to on the phone yesterday understood fully that the press release of the study did not stress that it was in regards to the oral version, but he was going to discuss it with his higher ups on trying to get a correction made.
Anyway, If there are any doctors that frequent this forum and I am sure they do, maybe they can fill us in on some more information...but I am, skeptical when a study is released with information about tests that were conducted in 2005, and that is what this study was in regards to, 2005... a long way back.. In my way of thinking, I would think that it would not involve people who has tests done recently... Like teak said.. there is a difference in Oraquick and Oraquick Advance..
Anyway, I will anxiously await any more responses..but read the study again on the press release.. where does it say anything about the blood tests?? it only mentions the oral test...
teak, I do believe you are FULLY CORRECT.
Anyway, call them and ask them about it...see what they have to say...They will talk to you.. they were very nice at Orasure and the Seattle location I called.
Don't confuse OraQuick, with OraQuick Advance. They are completely different tests. OraQuick was one of the first rapid tests which was blood only tests for the detection of HIV1. OraQuickAdvance, can be done by oral, blood or serum for the detection of HIV 1 and HIV 2. OraQuick Advance replaced the earlier OraQuick test.
Do a google search for "Sensitivity of OraQuick and Early Generation Enzyme
Immunoassay" There you will find a pdf of the study.
They say: "OraQuick used finger-stick blood samples or oral fluids, depending on the testing site."
The issue is that Oraquick both oral and blood tests searches only for antibodies to the gp41 protein, while ELISA searches for antibodies to other viral proteins as well.
Immunoassay" There you will find a pdf of the study.
They say: "OraQuick used finger-stick blood samples or oral fluids, depending on the testing site."
The issue is that Oraquick both oral and blood tests searches only for antibodies to the gp41 protein, while ELISA searches for antibodies to other viral proteins as well.
oh yeah, funny thing that the ppt presentation has now disappeared from the website of the study. I have it saved on my hard drive. it was kind of confusing, but never mentions directly about a blood test. It mentions the different types of rapid tests, and includes Oraquick rapid and tells the kind of tests they make..also, it says nothing about false negatives, it mentions false positives..
anyway.. i am not too smart of a person, but reading the conclusion of the test, no matter if it is about the oral or blood, it states.Oraquick may be less sensitive than 1st or 2nd gen EIA's in early infection.. it never says anything about testing outside the 3 month period.. I think that all of us who have tested outside the window period, can feel confident in our results.. but after re reading the study press release again, I feel that they are only talking about the oral test.. at least that is what it seems like to me..
anyway.. i am not too smart of a person, but reading the conclusion of the test, no matter if it is about the oral or blood, it states.Oraquick may be less sensitive than 1st or 2nd gen EIA's in early infection.. it never says anything about testing outside the 3 month period.. I think that all of us who have tested outside the window period, can feel confident in our results.. but after re reading the study press release again, I feel that they are only talking about the oral test.. at least that is what it seems like to me..
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
