The original of this article is in the July 2006 Newsletter of the UK's HIV prevention and treatment organisation, the Terrence Higgins Trust.
A new study from Uganda appears to show women are less likely to get HIV from circumcised men, reigniting the debate about whether circumcision should be advocated to reduce HIV transmission. But is the debate really so clear cut? | |
For decades male circumcision has
been justified on preventative
health grounds: sexually
transmitted infections (after
World War One), cervical cancer
(from the 50s) and urinary tract
infections (from the 80s). Now
HIV is cited as a justification.
This latest research into women’s vulnerability to infection(1) joins work that for the most part has previously only considered men. Some show circumcision reduces the risk, others that it increases it, while some demonstrate no effect. Yet how research is carried out and reported can mislead. Circumcision polarises opinion, with few men neutral about it (and most researchers in this area are men). When researchers come from cultures with a strong consensus around circumcision, how impartial will their findings be? Any discussion about the merits of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy is necessarily coloured by social attitudes towards the practice. In Europe circumcision of young males is rare except on medical or religious grounds; interestingly, there are few studies carried out by Europeans concluding circumcision is a valid HIV prevention tool. However, circumcision is still common in the United States. Lower HIV prevalence rates in some parts of Africa appear to be linked to higher levels of circumcision and some previous studies looking at the risk of men getting HIV from women suggested circumcision reduced the risk by 50-75%.(2)(3) But such studies need to be examined for biases, such as small or skewed samples or confounding factors not being taken into account, such as:
Research suggesting circumcision
protects against HIV transmission
has not been carried out over a
particularly long time. It may be
that circumcision only delays
infection and cannot prevent it.
Also, very many ‘cut’ men become
HIV positive and some nations that
routinely circumcise such as the
USA and Ethiopia have high rates
of HIV infection.(6) Mathematical
modelling has shown that if
circumcised men increase their
number of partners any protective
effect disappears and HIV incidence
rises. There is also the question
of the effect on sexual behaviour
and condom use if circumcised
men believe they cannot get or
pass on HIV.
One study showed that circumcision
has much less protective value with
higher viral load and showed
circumcision after puberty failed to
protect (this may have indicated that
Muslims in the study, circumcised
very young, exhibited other factors
that explained their lower infection
rate).(7) In addition, the practice
has been shown to have no or only
limited effect in protecting against
STIs, a major co-factor in the
spread of HIV, especially in the
developing world.(8)
Sex between men
The 2001 Gay Men’s Sex Survey(9)
found circumcised men were
slightly more likely to have
contracted HIV than ‘uncut’ men
(6.1% compared to 5%), a small
but statistically significant
difference seen across ages and
ethnic groups. However, these men
were much more likely to have
become infected through the
lining of the anus than through
the penis.
Australian researchers found no
association between circumcision
status and infection through
insertive unprotected anal
intercourse (UAI) - and men who
had become infected without
reporting UAI were also no more
likely to be ‘cut’. This report
concluded that the foreskin is not
the main source of HIV infection
in gay men who become infected
by insertive UAI and that
circumcision is not strongly
protective against HIV infection
in gay men.(10)
Should circumcision be
promoted?
The procedure requires hygiene
and anaesthetic, the availability
of which cannot be assumed
in the developing world. In
such conditions, complications
(including permanent injury to
the penis) are not uncommon.
Crucially, it would be unwise
to assume that findings from
the developing world can be
transposed onto populations
in the industrialised world
with better health care and
much lower burdens of STIs.
Yet in countries where access to
HIV treatment is poor or nonexistent,
might anything that
delays or prevents infection be
welcome? Although not culturally
acceptable among many populations,
research in Botswana
suggests that 81% of men would
undergo circumcision if it could
prevent HIV transmission.(11)
In addition, in cultures where
women find negotiating condom
use difficult, circumcision may
save many women and girls
from infection.
Ethical considerations
Care should be taken when
evidence is so contradictory or
unreliable. An association has
not been clearly established. More
randomised clinical trials (that
take into account confounding
factors) are needed before
circumcision can be confirmed
as a potential prevention strategy.
Reducing viral load or treating
ulcerative STIs would almost
certainly make more impact on
transmission rates than circumcising.
Circumcision at birth would
take 15-20 years to start to impact
on HIV transmission rates, during
which time other HIV prevention
technologies will hopefully become
available. Until then this is certain:
a condom offers more protection
than circumcision and circumcised
men will still be told they need
condoms to protect themselves
and their partners.
Richard Scholey,
1. Male circumcision and the risks
of female HIV and STI acquisition in
Rakai, Gray R et al. Uganda. Thirteenth
Conference on Retroviruses and
Opportunistic Infections, Denver, abstract
128, 2006
2. Auvert B et al. Impact of male
circumcision on the female-to-male
transmission of HIV. IAS Conference
on HIV pathogenesis and treatment,
Rio de Janeiro, abstract Tu0a0402, 2005
(found a 75% protective effect)
3. Baeten JM et al. Female-to-male
infectivity of HIV-1 among circumcised
and uncircumcised Kenyan men. Journal
of Infectious diseases 191:546-553, 2005
(found infections reduced by 50%)
4. ‘Dry sex’ is a common practice in many
African populations of rubbing drying
herbal preparations and other substances
into the vagina to make it drier and tighter,
in order to increase male pleasure. It is
believed to facilitate HIV transmission
through lacerations and inflammation,
increased condom failure and lack of
vaginal secretions to combat infection.
5. However, Langerhans cells are found in
all genital skin tissue. One study found an
excess of such cells in the foreskin, another
found very few. Nevertheless both concluded
the foreskin led to vulnerability to infection
and recommended circumcision.
6. Around 1 million Americans are estimated
to be living with HIV as of 2003, with
prevalence estimated at 0.6%, the second
highest among Western nations after Spain
(0.7%). Glynn M, Rhodes P. Estimated HIV
prevalence in the United States at the
end of 2003. National HIV Prevention
Conference. June 2005, Atlanta. Abstract
T1-B1101.
Ethiopia’s HIV prevalence is estimated to
be 4.4% (www.unaids.org)
7. Gray RH et al. Male Circumcision and
HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort
studies in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS, Volume 14,
Number 15:2371-2381, October 20, 2000.
9. Reid et al (2002) Know the score:
Findings from the National Gay Men’s Sex
Survey 2001.www.sigmaresearch.org.uk
/downloads/report02d.pdf (the 46th page of the pdf)
10. Gruhlich AE et al. Circumcision and
male-to-male sexual transmission of HIV.
AIDS, 2001 Jun 15; 15(9): 1188-1189
11. Kebaabetswe P et al. Male circumcision:
an acceptable strategy for HIV prevention
in Botswana. Sexually Transmitted Infections
79:214-219, 2003. (81% said they would
be circumcised themselves and 89% said
they would circumcise a male child).
|
Related pages:
Back to the Intactivism index page.