Male Circumcision: A New Defense Against HIV
Discover Magazine
18 December 2007
by Apoorva Mandavilli
Male circumcision cuts the risk of HIV transmission in men by about 60 percent and should be scaled up in countries hardest hit by the epidemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced in March, citing compelling evidence from three large trials in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa.
Since the 1980s, dozens of smaller studies have suggested that countries with high rates of circumcision, like the Muslim nations of western Africa, have lower rates of AIDS, whereas southern* Africa, where circumcision is rare, has been ravaged by the epidemic. There, a 2006 study suggests, circumcision could prevent about 6 million HIV infections and 3 million deaths over 20 years. Still, the WHO held back its recommendation until 2007, citing the need for randomized clinical trials.
“Circumcision was ignored for ages,” says Daniel Halperin, an AIDS researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, who laid out the case for circumcision in The Lancet as far back as 1999. “What I mainly criticize the WHO for is that, even with dozens and dozens of powerful studies, they refused to even talk about it.”
Circumcision is thought to prevent infection because the underside of the foreskin is rich in immune cells that are particularly vulnerable to HIV. Small tears in the foreskin during intercourse can also allow the virus to slip into the body.
Circumcision could reduce the odds of an infected man’s transmitting the virus to a female partner by 30 percent or more. For all its benefits, though, the WHO cautions that it should not replace standard methods of prevention like the use of condoms.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/male-circumcision-a-new-defense-against-hiv
What WHO and UNAIDS actually said:
New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf
Conclusion: The research evidence is compelling
The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention.
Recommendations :
1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
18 December 2007
by Apoorva Mandavilli
Male circumcision cuts the risk of HIV transmission in men by about 60 percent and should be scaled up in countries hardest hit by the epidemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced in March, citing compelling evidence from three large trials in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa.
Since the 1980s, dozens of smaller studies have suggested that countries with high rates of circumcision, like the Muslim nations of western Africa, have lower rates of AIDS, whereas southern* Africa, where circumcision is rare, has been ravaged by the epidemic. There, a 2006 study suggests, circumcision could prevent about 6 million HIV infections and 3 million deaths over 20 years. Still, the WHO held back its recommendation until 2007, citing the need for randomized clinical trials.
“Circumcision was ignored for ages,” says Daniel Halperin, an AIDS researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, who laid out the case for circumcision in The Lancet as far back as 1999. “What I mainly criticize the WHO for is that, even with dozens and dozens of powerful studies, they refused to even talk about it.”
Circumcision is thought to prevent infection because the underside of the foreskin is rich in immune cells that are particularly vulnerable to HIV. Small tears in the foreskin during intercourse can also allow the virus to slip into the body.
Circumcision could reduce the odds of an infected man’s transmitting the virus to a female partner by 30 percent or more. For all its benefits, though, the WHO cautions that it should not replace standard methods of prevention like the use of condoms.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/male-circumcision-a-new-defense-against-hiv
What WHO and UNAIDS actually said:
New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf
Conclusion: The research evidence is compelling
The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention.
Recommendations :
1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
posted by The Little Fireman | 5:39 AM
<< Home