Review Supports Circumcision In HIV Prevention
Main Category: HIV / AIDSAlso Included In: Clinical Trials / Drug Trials
Article Date: 15 Apr 2009 - 4:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
1.17 (29 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
1.4 (10 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 5 posts |
An analysis of three recent studies finds that heterosexual African men reduced their risk of HIV infection by half after undergoing circumcision.
While there's still more work to be done to determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of circumcision, the authors of the Cochrane Library analysis say there's "strong evidence" that the procedure will protect men from the virus that causes AIDS.
In fact, the results are so convincing that "it would now be unethical to conduct further trials" to determine whether circumcision provides protection, said lead author Nandi Siegfried, co-director of the South African Cochrane Centre at the South African Medical Research Council.
Still, researchers do not know how circumcision could affect transmission after two years. Nor do they know whether it reduces the risk for female sex partners or for men who have sex with men.
The new analysis looks at three randomized controlled studies that took place between 2002 and 2006 in South Africa, Uganda and Kenya. In all, 11,054 men (ages 18 to 24 or 15 to 49, depending on the country) took part.
Some men in the studies underwent circumcision as part of the study, while others did not. Researchers then followed the participants for up to two years to see what happened.
The new review appears in the latest issue of The Cochrane Library, a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical research. Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical practice after considering both the content and quality of existing medical trials on a topic.
The review authors combined the results of the studies in a meta-analysis. Overall, they found that the risk of HIV infection dropped by an estimated 50 percent in circumcised men at 12 months after the procedure, and it fell by an estimated 54 percent 21 or 24 months later.
Those are promising numbers. In fact, the study researchers stopped all of the studies early because the results made it clear that circumcision worked.
The study authors reported few side effects following circumcision. In the South African study, unlike the others, those who underwent circumcision had slightly more sexual partners over a yearlong period than those who remained uncircumcised: an average of 5.9 instead of five.
Scientists are not sure why circumcision provides protection against HIV, nor why it only helps some men.
However, it does appear that the foreskin makes it easier for the virus to enter the body by allowing infectious fluids to stick around, said Dr. Sten Vermund, director of the Institute for Global Health at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
The layer of tissue on the underside of the foreskin is extremely thin, just one cell thick, Vermund said. To make matters worse, sexually transmitted diseases can create inflammation under the foreskin and increase the risk of transmission, he said.
From an evolutionary perspective, Vermund said, the foreskin might no longer serve a purpose by protecting the penis from hazards like wayward tree branches."There are no more competitive advantages to keeping your penis in a sack," he said.
Still, the idea of circumcision makes many men queasy. Moreover, several barriers, such as cost and logistics, stand in the way of circumcising all baby boys.
"The obstacles are very daunting," Vermund said, even though it just takes 20 minutes to teach nurses to circumcise babies.
In the Western world, some critics say circumcision is painful, unnecessary and a hindrance to sexual pleasure in adulthood.
Still, policy-makers should look at circumcision as a way to prevent HIV transmission, said lead author Siegfried.
"We do need to consider every possible prevention method for reducing the rate of infection," Siegfried said. "This review shows us that circumcision is now a potential additional strategy in our toolbox."
The Cochrane Collaboration is an international nonprofit, independent organization that produces and disseminates systematic reviews of health care interventions and promotes the search for evidence in the form of clinical trials and other studies of interventions.
Source: Health Behavior News Service
Visit our hiv / aids section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/146044.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/146044.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (5)
Condoms Not Circumcision
posted by Eric on 15 Apr 2009 at 11:38 pmCircumcision without consent is unethical. This article talks about circumcising baby boys as if there's no ethical controversy at all. If men want to go under the knife because they believe it will improve their chances of staying disease free while engaging in unsafe sexual practices then they can feel free to consent and write the check themselves. Eventually they'll catch something but that's their problem. Europe has lower rates of stds than the US though they don't practice circumcision and we do. Why?
You've Got To Be Kidding
posted by TD on 16 Apr 2009 at 2:03 pmThese African studies have been picked apart by scientists around the world. They simply do not hold up in the face of everything we know about circumcision. For instance, it has been shown that Langerhans cells (present in the foreskin) form a natural barrier to HIV and other STDs. Take away the foreskin and you take away the body's first line of immunological defense against STDs.
Circumcision is only held onto in America because it represents easy money to the medical establishment (from the surgery itself to the human fibroblast aftermarket), despite being the ethical nightmare it really is. 85% of the males on the planet are happily intact. Education and condoms prevent HIV, not circumcision.
Shalom To Foreskins (African Ones)?
posted by Malene on 16 Apr 2009 at 5:55 pmAnother article of propaganda for the argued worth of prehistoric mutilations as modern medicine.
Those healthy foreskins must be giving nightmares,eh?
Count how many would get HIV,even when "protected" BY circumcision!
Cockrant may be found accountable of helping them to fall there.
Does Circumcision Work?
posted by Rowan on 16 Apr 2009 at 9:53 pmSA has various tribes one of which is Xhosa who culturally insist on circumcision for all males, while Zulu do not.
Surely then the Xhosa should have at least a 50% lower rate of HIV if the academics are correct?
Is this the case? and if not, then there is no proof that circumcision is the answer.
There Are Many Conflicting Evidences regarding circumcision
posted by Steve on 24 May 2009 at 7:47 amAt http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html it lists 20 studies that show male circumcisions do not reduce the likelihood of males getting AIDS, 4 of those studies show that male circumcisions increase the likelihood of males getting AIDS.
A couple years ago the CDC did a study in the U.S. that showed U.S. men are just as likely to become HIV infected if they are circumcised or not. In at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males.
Outside of the U.S. many medical organizations do not accept it as proven fact that male circumcisions reduce the risk of males getting AIDS. In my opinion you really have to cherry-pick evidences to be able to claim circumcisions help protect against AIDS. Futhermore circumcisions are sexually damaging, circumcised males are missing about FIFTEEN square inches of very valuable skin, also there are other harms and risks with circumcisions.
The U.S. is the only country in the world where it is common for baby boys to be circumcised for non-religious reasons, I think that is a strong indication that male circumcisions do more harm than good.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



