Friday, February 16, 2007

Male Circumcision and HIV/AIDS

“When is it appropriate for public health practice to be on the side of an intervention that causes bodily injury?” (Franco)

I'm Erika Larson.

That is the question McGill’s Professor of Epidemiology, Eduardo Franco, asked when addressing circumcision as a possible method of reducing HIV prevalence. Circumcision has historically caused a polarizing debate across sectors of society including the pious, and the hygienic. Health workers have generally abstained from taking a side. However, new evidence that circumcision reduces infectivity of HIV may alter this precedent.

A recent study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, Baeten et al. explore “Female to Male Infectivity of HIV-1 among Circumcised and Uncircumcised” in a cohort of Kenyan men. Unlike previous studies which did not isolate behavioral practices, this analysis designates per-sex act probabilities of HIV-1 transmission between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Between 1993 and 1997, 745 Kenyan men, employed by six trucking companies around the Mombasa area, were recruited. After pre-counseling and informed consent, these men were examined for circumcision status, STD infection, and HIV-1 seropositivity using the ELISA antibody test. Follow-up visits included detailed accounts of sexual encounters and condom use. Each man attended a median of 4 follow-up visits over the span of 400 days. Risk reduction counseling and provision of free condoms accompanied follow-up visits.

Of the 95 uncircumcised men (13%), 11 experienced sercoconversion. Of the 650 circumcised men (87%), 32 seroconverted. Though the majority engaged in sexual activity with their wives, many were involved in extramarital sexual contact. The median number of sex acts per month (4.0) did not vary between circumcised and uncircumcised men. By using surveillance data to estimate prevalence for potential partners (wives, casual partners, and prostitutes), the researchers found an overall probability of acquiring HIV-1 through a single sex act was .0063. Female to male infectivity was higher for uncircumcised men than circumcised men (.0128 vs. .0051). Uncircumcised men were found to have over a 2-fold increased risk of HIV-1 infectivity per sex act.

Because the study could not trace the infection status or disease status of partners, some variants could not be isolated. However, ethnicity, occupation, and sexual risk behavior were statistically isolated. All results still revealed that uncircumcised men were at a higher risk for contracting HIV. The biological factors that cause this discrepancy could be the result of the thick skin that develops after circumcision which prevents HIV from targeting Langerhans cells.

Another study by French and South African researchers found results so dramatic that the control group was given the option to undergo the procedure. New research has created a wave of optimism in the scientific community. Dr. Seth Berkley, president of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, stated circumcision would be “an intervention that works over a person’s lifetime and could reduce HIV in a community setting.” Questions of acceptance as a risk-reduction policy were appeased in a recent South African study. In a survey of uncircumcised men, 70% stated they would undergo the procedure if it “proved to protect against sexually transmitted diseases.”

However optimism of community acceptance is marred by a false sense of security that circumcision could create. Increased risk behavior on the part of circumcised men could counter-act the benefits. For example 30% of uncircumcised men and 18% of circumcised men believed that the procedure would allow them to safely engage in sex with multiple partners.

Though we have already seen considerable risk-taking in prevention policy with needle exchange programs and safe injection facilities, circumcision continues to push the envelope on ethical approaches. Can we promote circumcision as a global policy to help weaken the horrifying forces of HIV? Is it feasible to pursue a worldwide circumcision effort especially in countries that rely on traditional practices (whose circumcision procedures may increase HIV-risk)? How can we prevent the unintentional consequences of viewing circumcision as a cure and the abandonment of safe-sex practices? Though circumcision does not affect HIV prevalence in men who have sex with men or IV drug users, it has huge possibilities on the African continent where heterosexual contact is the primary mode of transmission.


TLC Tugger said...

In Malawi, Ghana, Rwanda, Tanzania, Lesotho, and Cameroon, HIV is markedly more prevalent among the circumcised. In non-cutting Japan, AIDS is more rare than in 95%-cut Israel. In the US, 450,000 men who were cut at birth have died of AIDS.

When a study yields results with no real-world predictive power, it is a sure sign of unaccounted-for influences in the population, the methods, the analysis, or in the study designers. In the South Africa trial, the cut men were told to abstain and then to be sure and use condoms. The intact men got no such counsel.

Even if the study results were true, they do not make a case for implementing medicalized circumcision over giving away condoms at a cost of only 3 cents each, as condoms also prevent pregnancy and prevent male-to-female HIV transmission.

Every major HIV/circ trial so far has been cut short, favoring a pro-circ finding. Imagine if I had a coin that only came up heads 1/3 of the time, while yours came up heads 2/3 of the time. Each of us will eventually toss heads. Unsafe sex will eventually kill you, cut or not. Circumcision does not prevent AIDS.

Anonymous said...

But what about the bodily injury? What about the long term sexual dysfunction believed to be caused by circumcision? The fact is circumcision is not a 'neutral' procedure without a cost in adverse outcomes over the short and long term. And these outcomes have not been studied in any depth. Such adverse outcomes would necessarily have an effect on infectivity. Until this is better understood, it would be irresponsible to promote the procedure.

chulo said...

I am a 62 yr old European man. I was circumcised 18 years ago as a health measure when I went to work in the tropics. These claims of sexual dysfunction and loss of pleasure are complete nonsense. The pleasure and satisfaction that I get from sex is equal or even greater than before i was circumcised.
These claims appear to be promoted by specialised Interest Groups who often appear to have a hidden political agenda based on religious and cultural beliefs.
The fact is that ANYTHING that can possibly reduce the spread of this vicious plague should be investigated and the results acted upon. Not to do so is the same as condoning mass murder.
It is young women who are mothers who will make the decisions on this issue not not old men who have not been circumcised. Maybe they will decide to do something positive to protect their sons and the girls their sons make love to.

David Wessner said...

Just yesterday, March 28, 2007, the WHO recommended that male circumcision should be included as a means of preventing heterosexual transmission of HIV to men.

The data seem clear - circumcision decreases the rate of transmission.