In the United States, if there is a positive test, the method of confirmation of a rapid oral test is with the use of a Western Blot test, not a standard blood test. http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=basics-01-01
New standards are being set in respect to oral rapid hiv testing. According to WHO guidelines:
“Supplemental or confirmatory tests, such as Western blot (WB), can be used to confirm infection in samples that are initially reactive on conventional EIAs. Alternatively, repetitive testing incorporating EIAs or rapid tests selected for their specificity may be used to confirm whether specimens found to be reactive for HIV antibodies with a particular screening test are specific to HIV. For practical purposes, resource-poor settings depend heavily on EIA and rapid tests for screening and confirmation. http://www.afro.who.int/aids/laboratory_services/resources/hiv_test_evaluation_guidelines.pdf (page 11)
Pretty much the standard is to perform a confirmatory test of a positive test or an indeterminant test with a different test of a higher specificity, whether it be blood, oral (which is difficult because currently the platforms of the two existing oral test are the same, until the Ani technology emerges for approval.) At that point if it is still positive, in the U.S., then the more expensive Western Blot is utilized. Due to costs and rural factors internationally and within developing countries, the confirming test is the standard with the Western Blot utilized only if it can be afforded.
I think thats why Roger Gale mentioned in one of the conference calls that the two different platforms of oral saliva would be recognized as a valid form of confirmation in accordance with WHO standards. He was referring to using the current test with the test based upon the Ani Platform, I believe.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
