HIV nucleic acid amplification testing versus rapid testing: it is worth the wait. Testing preferences of men who have sex with men

Abstract

We conducted a study comparing the OraQuickADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test, Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV Test, Determine HIV 1/2 Ag/Ab Combo, EIA, and pooled nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Men who have sex with men rated tests based on specimen collection method and trust in each test. Among 490 subjects, OraQuick performed on oral fluids ranked highest for specimen collection method but lowest on trust; NAAT scored highest on trust. Among a subset of these subjects, 46% would opt for NAAT if choosing one test. Strategies are needed to increase HIV testing that is accurate and consistent with client preferences.

Figure. Preference for specimen collection methods and trust in HIV tests are inversely related

Subjects rated six study HIV tests on a scale from 1 to 5 based on preferences for the specimen collection method (x axis) and trust in that test based the timing of their visit relative to recent risks for HIV acquisition (y axis). Among 490 subjects, testing on oral fluids (▲) had the highest mean rating for specimen collection method (4.2), but OraQuick performed on oral fluids was the least trusted test (2.8). In contrast, venipuncture (○□) had the lowest scores among the specimen collection methods but pooled HIV NAAT was the most trusted test (4.9) The three rapid rests performed on fingerstick specimens were rated similarly on both scores.