To circumcise or not to circumcise: That is the question.

by ALBERT S. MAKONE | HIV/AIDS|Zimbabwe Charity, INC. (HAZ)

To circumsize or not to circumsize: That is the question. (0 downloads)

Abstract

In sub-Saharan Africa, heterosexual transmission of HIV is the primary driver for the epidemic. At the end of 2009, 33.3 million people were living with HIV/AIDS worldwide and of these, 67.6% lived in sub-Saharan Africa. Male circumcision is one of the strategies being advocated for HIV prevention. Debates are ongoing on the protective effect of male circumcision. The current article critically evaluates the evidence for circumcision against the backdrop of arguments presented by opponents of male circumcision. The review involved the use of published texts and documents. Arguments presented by Boyle and Hill (2011) on methodological concerns, ethical and legal concerns on the male circumcision randomised controlled trials done in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa, are evaluated. Current evidence shows that medical male circumcision is efficacious in preventing HIV infection and reduced morbidity and mortality from multiple sexually transmitted infections and genital cancers in men and their female sexual partners. Male circumcision has been shown to be cost effective. The current review concludes that current evidence supports the need to accelerate the implementation of medical male circumcision programmes for HIV prevention in high HIV burden countries.

Introduction

In sub-Saharan Africa, heterosexual transmission of HIV is the primary driver for the epidemic (Alistar & Brandeau, 2012).  At the end of 2009, 33.3 million people were living with HIV/AIDS worldwide and of these, 67.6% lived in sub-Saharan Africa (UNAIDS & UNICEF, 2009). HIV/AIDS funding has been substantially affected by the global economic crisis with HIV prevention funds leveling off in the last decade and future funding commitments unclear.  Funding constraints have created pressure on prevention programmes to be more accountable, by providing clearer evidence of cost effectiveness and delivering better value for money (Padian et al., 2011; Padian, McCoy, Balkus, & Wasserheit, 2010).  Medical male circumcision is one of the prevention methods being rolled out in Africa.  Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin of the penis and it is one of the oldest, simple procedures that have been undertaken for religious, cultural, social and medical reasons (Westercamp & Bailey, 2007).

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), in March 2007, recommended male circumcision as an efficacious intervention for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men (WHO & UNAIDS, 2007).  In 2005 and 2006 randomized controlled trials in three African countries demonstrated that voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) reduced the risk of female–to–male sexual transmission by roughly 60% (Auvert et al., 2005; R. C. Bailey et al., 2007; R.H. Gray et al., 2007).  Since 2007, both the WHO and UNAIDS have recommended that countries with generalized HIV epidemics and a low prevalence of male circumcision progressively expand access to safe voluntary medical male circumcision services (WHO & UNAIDS, 2011a).  It is with this evidence that the WHO and UNAIDS identified 13 priority countries for the scale-up of VMMC: Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The current article critically evaluates the evidence for circumcision against the backdrop of arguments presented by opponents of male circumcision (Boyle & Hill, 2011; Chin, 2011; Conroy, 2011; Darby, 2011; Darby & Van Howe, 2011; Forbes, 2011; Green et al., 2010; Paix, 2011).  The review thus tries to address a question that many a contemporary African man must be asking themselves; “To circumcise or not to circumcise?”

Methodology

In conducting research for the current article, the author adopted a tertiary documentary review approach, using quantitative and qualitative approaches for the analysis of information on male circumcision. Documentary review refers to the analysis of documents that contain information about the phenomenon under study (K. Bailey, 1994).  In the current case, documentary review involved the use of published texts covering the time frame addressed in the debates on male circumcision as the practice relates to HIV/AIDS (i.e. 1986 to 2012).  Source materials included publications from international organizations (e.g. UNAIDS, World Bank, World Health Organization) as well as government publications, journal papers, public access databases, and other written sources in hard copy or electronic form.

Boolean search queries were conducted, which were comprised of:  (HIV “OR” prevention) “AND” (HIV prevention methods) “AND” (HIV incidence) “AND” (male circumcision “OR” voluntary medical male circumcision) “AND” (circumcision “OR” effectiveness “OR” management) “AND” (sexual risk behaviour) “AND” (HIV testing “OR” operations research) “AND” (circumcision critics “OR” circumcision opposition).

The following databases were searched:

  • Scientific publications such as: (AJOL, BMJ, Cochrane, EBSCO, Merck Index, MedlinePlus, PubMed, and Science Direct)
  • Electronic conference proceedings of recent HIV/AIDS-related conferences up to the end of May, 2012
  • Reports and publications from advocacy groups involved in HIV prevention
  • Public-access search engines such as Google Scholar and Google Web (Scientific publications, UNAIDS, and WHO publications)

The articles reviewed were restricted to those published in the English language.  A list of materials retrieved by the search was created and materials retrieved were reviewed, and documents were marked which included relevant information.  Marked materials were then reviewed in-depth to determine and or confirm initial identified relevance.  Unmarked items were then reviewed to determine their relevance and finally a list of marked materials was created in the American Psychological Association (APA) format using EndNote.

Review Findings

I.     Methodological Concerns of the randomised controlled trials

Boyle and Hill (2011) highlighted some methodological concerns on the three randomised controlled trials (RCT) carried out in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. They highlighted issues to do with researcher expectation bias, participant bias, inadequate double blinding, selection and sampling bias, lead-time bias and early termination. Randomized controlled trials are studies designed in such a way that the study participants are randomly (by chance alone) allocated to the different groups of a study or intervention, so as to eliminate any bias by the researchers (Jadad, 1998). Bias in research is anything that produces a systematic error, where a particular finding deviates from a ‘true’ finding. Double blinding is an experimental technique in clinical research in which neither the researcher nor the patient knows whether the intervention administered is considered inactive or active (Sibbald, 1998). The purpose of a double-blind study is to eliminate the risk of prejudgment by the participants, which could distort the results (Sibbald, 1998). RCTs constitute a working model where researchers can exercise maximum control. However, the reality in the real world is that things may be very different. The use of RCTs is limited by ethical and practical concerns.

Three RCTs in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa with comparable designs showed that male circumcision was effective against HIV acquisition. The first RCT was carried out between 2002 and 2005 in a peri-urban setting near Johannesburg, Orange Farm, in South Africa (Auvert, et al., 2005). 3,274 HIV‐negative men, aged 18-24 years, were randomized, 1,617 to immediate and 1,656 to later circumcision. After circumcision, men were advised to wait for complete healing before resuming sexual activity. During the trial, the subjects received repeated information on HIV prevention and other sexually transmitted diseases, as well as free condoms. This RCT was stopped early at 18 months after a planned interim analysis showed a significant 61% reduction in HIV risk. These results were confirmed in two trials with a similar design carried out in Kenya (R. C. Bailey, et al., 2007) and in Uganda (R.H. Gray, et al., 2007), also stopped early as evidence emerged that male circumcision provided significant benefits.

The argument that the trials of male circumcision lack external validity because of ideal counseling conditions and condom promotion is illogical because both study arms were equally exposed to those non-circumcision interventions (Lissouba et al., 2010). The concern that the effect is not durable is not supported by evidence from the Kenya trial showing that the protective effect of medical male circumcision was sustained and actually strengthened at 54 months of follow-up (Banerjee et al., 2011). The researchers of the three trials did the best they could to make the trial scientifically acceptable to other researchers since human beings are not illogical subjects without free will.  In research involving humans, all studies are subject to confounding and bias. Data from the three RCTs satisfy six of the nine criteria of causality as outlined by Sir AB Hill; namely strength of association, consistency, temporality, coherence, biological plausibility and experiment.

It is worth pointing out that observational studies had already been conducted on male circumcision for up to two decades, prior to the three RCTs.  A meta-analysis by Weiss and colleagues of 27 observational studies from the late 1990s showed a reduced risk  in 21 studies (Weiss, Quigley, & Hayes, 2000). Evidence from observational studies have been useful to confirm the results from RCTs (Lie & Miller, 2011).

A Cochrane systematic review in 2005 assessing the quality of 37 studies of HIV and male circumcision noted that while the different methodologies showed varying results, the protective effect of male circumcision was supported consistently in all the studies (Siegfried et al., 2005).  Drain and colleagues did an ecological analysis of 118 developing countries that showed that high male circumcision prevalence was strongly correlated with low HIV prevalence, independent of religion (Drain, Halperin, Hughes, Klausner, & Bailey, 2006). Gebremedhin in 2010 did a cross-sectional analysis of Demographic Health Survey (DHS) data for 18 countries across sub-Saharan Africa from 2003 to 2008 involving 70,554 males aged 15 to 59 years and the study confirmed that being uncircumcised was significantly associated with higher risk of HIV infection and the risk increases with the number of partners (Gebremedhin, 2010). Evidence from the regions where male circumcision was almost universally practiced showed no country with an adult HIV prevalence greater than 6% (Klausner et al., 2008).

Thus, the arguments from Boyle and Hill on methodological concerns do not hold much power considering the vast evidence from various studies pointing to the same direction.

II.     Circumcision as a cause of HIV infection

Boyle and Hill (2011) stated that male circumcision was a possible cause of HIV transmission as it was associated with 61% increased transmission of HIV to female sex partners of circumcised HIV-infected men, as suggested by a study by Wawer and colleagues in Uganda.  However, Boyle and Hill selectively quote this study, where HIV-positive men resumed sexual activities before complete wound healing (Wawer et al., 2009). Nonetheless, from a scientific point of view, the increase in transmission was not statistically significant. Indeed resuming sex too soon before wounds heal does pose a potential risk for increased HIV transmission. Hankins in 2007 showed that male circumcision conferred long-term indirect and potential direct positive impacts on women (Hankins, 2007). The indirect impact comes from lowering of HIV prevalence in men (Gwandure, 2011; UNAIDS/WHO/SACEMA Expert Group on Modelling the Impact and Cost of Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention, 2009). Weiss and colleagues carried out a meta-analysis study where they found 20% lower HIV in the female partners of HIV-positive circumcised men (Weiss, Hankins, & Dickson, 2009). Studies done in Zimbabwe and Kenya using mathematical modeling in the general population settings predicted that male circumcision would lower male-to-female HIV transmission by 46% (Hallett et al., 2011; Halperin et al., 2011).

III.     Non-sexual transmission of HIV

Boyle and Hill stated that the three trials in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa did not report on non-sexual transmission of HIV, such as exposure through blood transfusions or infected needles. They thus argue that circumcision may not be as effective at decreasing HIV transmission and they quoted an article by Vines (Vines, 2006). UNAIDS has shown that HIV distribution by sex, and across age groups, is clearly consistent with sexual behavior as the main mode of transmission (UNAIDS & UNICEF, 2009; UNAIDS & WHO, 2008; WHO & UNAIDS, 2011b). The WHO and UNAIDS using modeling studies and ecological observations have shown consistent evidence for the major role of sexual intercourse in the transmission of HIV (WHO & UNAIDS, 2007, 2011b). In many sub-Saharan African countries, the role of multiple and concurrent partnerships is well documented (Halperin, et al., 2011; Klausner, et al., 2008; Masuku, Kurewa, Sisimayi, Chandiwana, & Babill-Stray, 2012; Shelton, 2009).

A UNAIDS Reference Group in 2003 developed a Modes of Transmission (MoT) approach to help country-level policy makers respond to the epidemic and prioritize interventions. The MoT approach provides a robust means for estimating patterns of adult HIV transmission through different routes (Gouws, White, Stover, & Brown, 2006). MoT analyses conducted in Kenya, Lesotho, Swaziland, Uganda and Zambia show that sexual behavior accounts for over 94% of new infections in each country (Gala´rraga, Colchero, Wamai, & Bertozzi, 2009; Wamai et al., 2011). Literature shows that non-sexual routes of HIV transmission are minor and it is important to prioritize evidence-based means of reducing heterosexual transmission, of which male circumcision is one.

IV.     Contradictory Evidence

Boyle and Hill (2011) highlighted that the 60% relative reduction in HIV infections in the trials was not true. They calculated their own absolute decrease in HIV infection to be only 1.31% and quoted a study by Green and colleagues on 17 observational studies which found no relationship between male circumcision and HIV transmission (Green, et al., 2010). In 2005 and 2007, the efficacy and evidence of male circumcision was verified beyond any doubt by results from three large RCTs in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda (Auvert, et al., 2005; R. C. Bailey, et al., 2007; R.H. Gray, et al., 2007). UNAIDS and WHO accepted the results and the Cochrane committee concluded that male circumcision for HIV prevention was supported and there were no further trials needed (Siegfried et al., 2009; UNAIDS & UNICEF, 2009; UNAIDS & WHO, 2008; WHO & UNAIDS, 2007, 2011a). In 2010, Padian and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 37 late-phase RCTs of various HIV prevention interventions and found that male circumcision had a stronger efficacy in preventing HIV infection than microbicides and treatment of STIs (Padian, et al., 2010).

Male circumcision has been shown to be protective against other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), such as herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2) (A. A. Tobian et al., 2009; A. A. R. Tobian, Gray, & Quinn, 2010), human papillomavirus (HPV) (R. Gray et al., 2012; R. H.  Gray et al., 2010; Wawer et al., 2011), and genital ulcer disease (R.H.  Gray et al., 2009), and is associated with a reduction in the risk of genital cancers among both men and women (Mosconi, Roila, Gatta, & Theodore, 2005).

Several studies have been done on the biological mechanism of male circumcision in mitigating HIV infection. The foreskin contains a high density of Langerhans / dendritic cells and CD4/CD8 T lymphocytes, all target cells for HIV (Ganor & Bomsel, 2011; Morris, 2007; Szabo & Short, 2000). By reducing the surface of the foreskin, male circumcision reduces the number of these target cells.

V.     Ethical and Legal Arguments

Lack of fully informed consent and participant inducement are the ethical issues raised by Boyle and Hill (2011) in their paper criticizing male circumcision. The example quoted by Boyle and Hill, of Ugandan men who thought that by getting circumcised they would not catch HIV, is not strong enough to denounce three clinical trials. Boyle and Hill also argue that participants of the trials were paid and this might have induced them to participate. It should be noted that the participants were not paid but they received compensation for their participation.

Conclusions

As is often the case with many new medical interventions, male circumcision faces a number of criticisms in its implementation in sub-Saharan Africa, some of which have been highlighted above. Incidence of HIV is now declining in many sub-Saharan African countries.  However, nearly 70% of new HIV infections globally, are still within this region (WHO & UNAIDS, 2011b). Current evidence from RCTs shows that in comparison to a protective effect of 31.2% for a vaccine, 39% for microbicides, and 46% for prophylaxis, male circumcision has a 60% efficacy (Auvert, et al., 2005; R. C. Bailey, et al., 2007; Brooks et al., 2010; R.H. Gray, et al., 2007; Sawires et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2006). Male circumcision has been shown to reduce urinary tract infections in infants and children, ulcerative sexually transmitted infections (STIs), human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer in women, and bacterial vaginosis and trichomonas in the female partners of circumcised men (R.H.  Gray, et al., 2009; Wawer, et al., 2011).

UNAIDS in 2011 determined that scale-up of voluntary medical male circumcision in appropriate settings constitutes a high-impact intervention with excellent value for money (Njeuhmeli et al., 2011). Male circumcision has been shown to be cost effective as male circumcision scale up to 80% coverage will avert 3.4 million, or 22%, of new HIV infections through 2025 and will result in net savings amounting to US$16.5 billion due to treatment and care costs averted (Kahn, Marseille, & Auvert, 2006; WHO, March 2012).

So why not invest in this cost effective method of HIV prevention? Male circumcision opponents misrepresent credible research, and cite questionable websites, outlier studies, and non-peer-reviewed book chapters (Conroy, 2011; Garenne, 2006; Morris et al., 2006; Schoen, Oehrli, Colby, & Machin, 2000). The current review of the evidence for VMMC in the backdrop of the arguments presented by opponents of VMMC leaves this author with no choice but to recommend male circumcision as a way of reducing the transmission of HIV.  The demonstrated benefits far outweigh the arguments presented by the critics of male circumcision.

Further Discussions

The Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS, adopted at the June 2011 High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS at the United Nations General Assembly, reiterates the insistence of Member States that “prevention must constitute the cornerstone of the global HIV and AIDS response” and specifically pledges to “promote medical MC where HIV prevalence is high and male circumcision rates are low” (WHO & UNAIDS, 2011a). To date, the evidence presented shows that if male circumcision is performed by a qualified practitioner under acceptable conditions of hygiene in the absence of contra-indications, far greater good results than harm.

Opponents of male circumcision question the intervention’s efficacy, and following the recent release of the 2010-2011 Zimbabwe Health Demographic Survey, their opposition to the intervention is likely to be bolstered.  Data from the recent survey indicates that 14 percent of circumcised men in the country between the ages of 15 and 49 contracted HIV, when compared to uncircumcised men. There are various explanations that can explain why the HIV infection percentage was high amongst circumcised men.

One possibility is that the circumcised men resumed sex before their surgical wounds had completely healed. As previously explained in the current review, resuming sexual activities too prior to complete healing of the surgical wounds poses a potential risk as was seen in the study in Rakai, Uganda, by Wawer and colleagues in 2009 (Wawer, et al., 2009). The role of multiple and concurrent partnerships is well documented in many sub-Saharan Africa countries and this is also a key driver in the spread of HIV infection (Halperin, et al., 2011; Shelton, 2009; Wamai, et al., 2011).

It should be pointed out that the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) data has previously been called into question due to inherent methodological designs that impact on the interpretation of the data (Gala´rraga, et al., 2009; Gersovitz, 2005; Wamai, et al., 2011). DHS data are often bidirectional, indicating contrasting and context-specific effects (Wamai, et al., 2011). There is need to better understand the context of the subjects who took part in the survey, in view of similar findings which were once reported in Tanzania in 2005 (TACAIDS, 2005). In the Tanzania survey, HIV infections were also high among circumcised men, who also happened to be highly educated and had high incomes (TACAIDS, 2005). The men in this context were found to engage in higher risk behaviour of, such as having multiple concurrent sex partners, than were circumcised men of lower educational background and income (Klausner, et al., 2008; Shelton, 2009).

Multiple factors thus need to be examined when evaluating the relationship between male circumcision and HIV prevalence, particularly in a case such as in this with, DHS surveys that involve self-reported data. Such factors may include risky sexual behaviour, time of male circumcision, marital status, education, wealth and patterns of residence (i.e. urban vs rural) (Wamai, et al., 2011). As has been pointed out previously, evidence from regions where male circumcision is almost universal show no country with an adult HIV prevalence greater than 6% (Klausner, et al., 2008).

Although male circumcision is efficacious in reducing the risk of HIV infection for men, care must be taken to ensure that men and women understand that the procedure does not provide 100% protection against HIV infection. Male circumcision must be considered as just one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package that includes delaying the onset of sexual relations (after surgery), correct and consistent use of condoms, reductions in the number of sexual partners, and testing and counselling to know one’s HIV serostatus (UNAIDS & WHO, 2008; WHO & UNAIDS, 2007).

The author recommends policy makers to urgently facilitate implementation of male circumcision as a public health measure to stop the growing heterosexual transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa and globally. Male circumcision is highly efficacious against STIs and HIV acquisition and it also confers other multiple health benefits (Wamai, et al., 2011). It is time to mobilize sufficient resources to provide safe and widespread medical male circumcision in high HIV burden countries.

References

  1. Alistar, S. S., & Brandeau, M. L. (2012). Decision making for HIV prevention and treatment scale up: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. Medical Decision Making, 32(1).
  2. Auvert, B., Taljaard, D., Lagarde, E., Sobngwi-Tambekou, J., Sitta, R., & Puren, A. (2005). Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med, 2(e298).
  3. Bailey, K. (1994). Methods of Social Research
  4. Bailey, R. C., Moses, S., Parker, C. B., Agot, K., Maclean, I., Krieger, J. N., et al. (2007). Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 369.
  5. Banerjee, J., Klausner, J. D., Halperin, D. T., Wamai, R., Schoen, E. J., Moses, S., et al. (2011). Circumcision Denialism Unfounded and Unscientific. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40.
  6. Boyle, G. J., & Hill, G. (2011). Sub-Saharan Africa randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. Thomson Reuters, 19(316).
  7. Brooks, R. A., Etzel, M., Klosinski, L. E., Leibowitz, A. A., Sawires, S., Szekeres, G., et al. (2010). Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Looking to the Future. Springer, 14.
  8. Chin, J. J. (2011). Matters arising: “The case of boosting infant male circumcision in the face of rising heterosexual transmission of HIV”… and now the case against The Medical Journal of Australia, 194, 100-101.
  9. Conroy, N. (2011). Matters arising: “The case of boosting infant male circumcision in the face of rising heterosexual transmission of HIV”… and now the case against. The Medical Journal of Australia, 194, 94.
  10. Darby, R. L. (2011). Matters arising: “The case of boosting infant male circumcision in the face of rising heterosexual transmission of HIV”… and now the case against. The Medical Journal of Australia, 194, 100.
  11. Darby, R. L., & Van Howe, R. S. (2011). Not a surgical vaccine: there is no case for boosting infant male circumcision to combat heterosexual transmission of HIV in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 35, 459-465.
  12. Drain, P. K., Halperin, D. T., Hughes, J. P., Klausner, J. D., & Bailey, R. C. (2006). Male circumcision, religion and infectious diseases: An ecological analysis of 118 developing countries. BMC Infect Dis, 6(172).
  13. Forbes, D. A. (2011). Matters arising: “The case of boosting infant male circumcision in the face of rising heterosexual transmission of HIV”… and now the case against. The Medical Journal of Australia, 194, 97.
  14. Gala´rraga, O., Colchero, M. A., Wamai, R. G., & Bertozzi, S. M. (2009). HIV prevention cost-effectiveness: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 9(1).
  15. Ganor, Y., & Bomsel, M. (2011). HIV-1 Transmission in the male genital tract. Am J Reprod Immunol, 65, 284-291.
  16. Garenne, M. (2006). Male Circumcision and HIV Control in Africa. PLoS Med, 3(1).
  17. Gebremedhin, S. (2010). Assessment of the Protective Effect of Male Circumcision from HIV Infection and Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Evidence from 18 Demographic and Health Surveys in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr J Reprod Health, 14, 105-113.
  18. Gersovitz, M. (2005). The HIV epidemic in four African countries seen through the demographic and health survey. J Afr Econ, 14, 191-246.
  19. Gouws, E., White, P. J., Stover, J., & Brown, T. (2006). Short term estimates of adult HIV incidence by mode of transmission: Kenya and Thailand as examples. Sex Transm Infect, 82(Suppl 3).
  20. Gray, R., Kigozi, G., Kong, X., Ssempiija, V., Makumbi, F., Wattya, S., et al. (2012). The effectiveness of male circumcision for HIV prevention and effects on risk behaviors in a post-trial follow up study. AIDS, 26(1), 609-615.
  21. Gray, R. H., Kigozi, G., Serwadda, D., Makumbi, F., Nalugoda, F., & al., E. (2009). The effects of male circumcision on female partners’ genital tract symptoms and vaginal infections in a randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 200(42), e41–47.
  22. Gray, R. H., Kigozi, G., Serwadda, D., Makumbi, F., Watya, S., Nalugoda, F., et al. (2007). Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: A randomised trial. Lancet, 369, 657-666.
  23. Gray, R. H., Serwadda, D., Kong, X., Makumbi, F., Kigozi, G., Gravitt, P. E., et al. (2010). Male Circumcision Decreases Acquisition and Increases Clearance of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus in HIV-Negative Men: A Randomized Trial in Rakai, Uganda. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 201(10).
  24. Green, L. W., Travis, J. W., McAllister, R. G., Peterson, K. W., Vardanyan, A. N., & Craig, A. (2010). Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39, 479-482.
  25. Gwandure, C. (2011). The ethical concerns of using medical male circumcision in HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. SAJBL, 4(2).
  26. Hallett, T. B., Alsallaq, R. A., Baeten, J. M., Weiss, H., Celum, C., Gray, R., et al. (2011). Will circumcision provide even more protection from HIV to women and men? New estimates of the population impact of circumcision interventions. Sex Transm Infect, 87(1), 88-93.
  27. Halperin, D. T., Mugurungi, O., Hallett, T. B., Muchini, B., Campbell, B., Magure, T., et al. (2011). A Surprising Prevention Success: Why Did the HIV Epidemic Decline in Zimbabwe? PLoS Med, 8(2).
  28. Hankins, C. (2007). Male circumcision: Implications for women as sexual partners and parents. Reprod Health Matters, 15, 62-67.
  29. Jadad, A. R. (Ed.). (1998). Randomised controlled trials: a user’s guide. London, England: BMJ Books.
  30. Kahn, J. K., Marseille, E., & Auvert, B. (2006). Cost-Effectiveness of Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in a South African Setting. PLoS Med, 3(12).
  31. Klausner, J. D., Wamai, R. G., Bowa, K., Agot, K., Kagimba, J., & Halperin, D. (2008). Is male circumcision as good as the vaccine we’ve been waiting for? Future HIV Therapy, 2(1), 1-7.
  32. Lie, R. K., & Miller, F. G. (2011). What counts as reliable evidence for public health policy: the case of circumcision for preventing HIV infection. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(34).
  33. Lissouba, P., Taljaard, D., Rech, D., Doyle, S., Shabangu, D., Nhlapo, C., et al. (2010). A Model for the Roll-Out of Comprehensive Adult Male Circumcision Services in African Low-Income Settings of High HIV Incidence: The ANRS 12126 Bophelo Pele Project. PLoS Med, 7(7).
  34. Masuku, T., Kurewa, E. N., Sisimayi, C. N., Chandiwana, P., & Babill-Stray, P. (2012). Single HIV infected women’s experiences with HIV and coping strategies: The case of Chitungwiza and Epworth in Zimbabwe. Journal of AIDS and HIV Research, 4(6), 175-180.
  35. Morris, B. J. (2007). Why circumcision is a bio,edical imperative for the 21st century. BioEssays, 27, 1147-1158.
  36. Morris, B. J., Bailis, S. A., Castellsague´, X., Wiswell, T. E., Halperin, D. T., & al, E. (2006). RACP’s policy statement on infant male circumcision is ill-conceived. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 30, 16-22.
  37. Mosconi, A. M., Roila, F., Gatta, G., & Theodore, C. (2005). Cancer of the penis. Rev Oncol Hematol, 53, 165–177.
  38. Njeuhmeli, E., Forsythe, S., Reed, J., Opuni, M., Bollinger, L., Heard, N., et al. (2011). Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision: Modeling the Impact and Cost of Expanding Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Eastern and Southern Africa. PLoS Med, 8(11).
  39. Padian, N. S., McCoy, S. I., Abdool Karim, S. S., Hasen, N., Kim, J., Bartos, M., et al. (2011). HIV prevention transformed: the new prevention research agenda. Lancet, 378, 269-278.
  40. Padian, N. S., McCoy, S. I., Balkus, J. E., & Wasserheit, J. N. (2010). Weighing the gold in the gold standard: challenges in HIV prevention research. AIDS, 24, 621-635.
  41. Paix, B. R. (2011). Matters arising: “The case of boosting infant male circumcision in the face of rising heterosexual transmission of HIV”… and now the case against. The Medical Journal of Australia, 194, 100.
  42. Sawires, S. R., Dworkin, S. L., Fiamma, A., Peacock, D., Szekeres, G., & Coates, T. J. (2007). Male circumcision and HIV/AIDS: challenges and opportunities. Lancet, 369, 708-713.
  43. Schoen, E. J., Oehrli, M., Colby, C. J., & Machin, G. (2000). The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics, 105.
  44. Shelton, J. D. (2009). Why multiple sexual partners? Lancet, 367-374.
  45. Sibbald, B. (1998). Understanding controlled trials: Why are randomised controlled trials important?   Retrieved 15 July, 2012, from http://www.bmj.com/content/316/7126/201
  46. Siegfried, N., Muller, M., Deeks, J., Volmink, J., Egger, M., Low, N., et al. (2005). HIV and male circumcision – a systematic review with assessment of the quality of studies. Lancet Infect Dis, 5, 165-173.
  47. Siegfried, N., Muller, M., Volmink, J., Deeks, J. J., Egger, M., Low, N., et al. (2009). Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Review). Cochrane Database of Syst Rev, 2(CD003362).
  48. Szabo, R., & Short, R. V. (2000). How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ, 320.
  49. TACAIDS. (2005). Tanzania HIV/AIDS Indicator Survey  2003-04: Tanzania Commission for AIDS (TACAIDS).
  50. Tobian, A. A., Serwadda, D., Quinn, T. C., Kigozi, G., Gravitt, P. E., & al., E. (2009). Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis. New England Journal of Medicine, 360, 1298–1309.
  51. Tobian, A. A. R., Gray, R. H., & Quinn, T. C. (2010). Male Circumcision for the Prevention of Acquisition and Transmission of Sexually Transmitted Infections. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med., 164(1).
  52. UNAIDS, & UNICEF. (2009). Towards Universal Access: Scaling Up Priority HIV/AIDS Interventions in the Health Sector, Progress Report 2009. Geneva: WHO, UNAIDS & UNICEF.
  53. UNAIDS, & WHO. (2008). Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS.
  54. UNAIDS/WHO/SACEMA Expert Group on Modelling the Impact and Cost of Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention. (2009). Male Circumcision for HIV prevention in high HIV prevalence settings: What can mathematical medelling contribute to informed decision making? PLoS Med, 6(e1000109).
  55. Vines, J. (2006). Major Potential Confounder Not Addressed. PLoS Med, 3(1).
  56. Wamai, R. G., Morris, B. J., Bailis, S. A., Sokal, D., Klausner, J. D., Appleton, R., et al. (2011). Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current evidence and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 14(49).
  57. Wawer, M. J., Gray, R. H., Serwadda, D., Kigozi, G., Nalugoda, F., Watya, S., et al. (2009). Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374, 229-237.
  58. Wawer, M. J., Tobian, A. A. R., Kigozi, G., Kong, X., Gravitt, P. E., Serwadda, D., et al. (2011). Effect of circumcision of HIV-negative men on transmission of human papillomavirus to HIV-negative women: a randomised trial in Rakai, Uganda. Lancet, 377.
  59. Weiss, H. A., Hankins, C. A., & Dickson, K. (2009). Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis, 9, 669-677.
  60. Weiss, H. A., Quigley, M. A., & Hayes, R. J. (2000). Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS, 14, 2361-2370.
  61. Westercamp, N., & Bailey, R. C. (2007). Acceptability of Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review. AIDS Behav, 11, 341–355.
  62. WHO. (March 2012). Use of devices for adult male circumcision in public health HIV prevention programmes: Conclusions of the Technical Advisory Group on Innovations in Male Circumcision. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  63. WHO, & UNAIDS. (2011b). Progress in scale-up of male circumcision for HIV prevention in Eastern and Southern Africa: Focus on service delivery. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  64. Williams, B. G., Lloyd-Smith, J. O., Gouws, E., Hankins, C., Getz, W. M., Hargrove, J., et al. (2006). The Potential Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS Med, 3(7).

 

[Download not found]

 

The following two tabs change content below.

Albert Makone

HAZ Country Director (Zimbabwe)

Latest posts by Albert Makone (see all)

Comments

  1. vusumuzi ndlovu says:

    My question is, besides those controvetial RCTS in different African countries, are there any studies that have been done in Zimbabwe so far? Also the criticism on the findings of the ZDHS of 2010-2011 does not hold water, besides being a mere assumption that at least should be researched on. I think as consumers of services it is important to give us conclusive results, and not the biased information. And again its not all the RCT studies that concluded with the 60% protection, but it seems the proponents of these studies are just fond of the 60%, why….? we need better researched information please.

  2. psandz says:

    The 2010-2011 Zimbabwe Health Survey, which found no demographic evidence that circumcision protects against HIV, is only the tip of the iceberg.
    Comparing the statistical levels of HIV infection between the circumcised and uncircumcised men of all the African countries so far investigated produces much evidence that is inconsistent with experimental findings that circumcision provides substantial protection against HIV. For example, the 2009 USAID report that investigated 18 African countries concludes: “There appears to be no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher” (see: “Levels and Spread of HIV Seroprevalence and Associated Factors: Evidence from National Household Surveys” (2009), or http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf).
    These ecological findings provide useful evidence, because they compare HIV rates in the circumcised and uncricumcised men WITHIN countries rather than BETWEEN countries, This within-country or internal ecological evidence tends to mitigate the effects of bias that plague observational studies comparing HIV rates between different countries.

    The three African RCTs (discussed above) are falsely held to produce the “gold standard” of empirical evidence. I say “falsely”, because they are too limited by design flaw to be competent to have meaningful epidemiologic viability. Their major flaw, which really annihilates their credibility, is the failure to consider (and correct for) SELF-SELECTION bias in the men recruited. Why is self-selection bias a major weakness of the RCTs? The answer is that randomisation only occurred at the experimental level, and not at the population level, so the RCT recruits cannot be considered to be representative of men in the general population. The significance of this design flaw has been shockingly ignored or underestimated even by the “intactivist” movement so far. The problem should be obvious: The great majority of men who elect circumcision do so in response to a foreskin problem or pathology. For example, evidence shows that in the USA over 90% of men who elect to be circumcised fall into this medical category. There is no reason to doubt that foreskin pathologies or defects would not also have motivated the RCT subjects to volunteer for circumcision (guaranteed to be performed under optimal medical conditions), in order to correct a prevailing foreskin problem. But foreskin pathologies are known to increase vulnerability to HIV (and other STD) contraction! The RCT participants are likely to have been OVER-REPRESENTED with foreskin abnormalities relative to the general male population. Randomisation in the trials would in no way have corrected for such bias (as confounding factor): the men assigned to be circumcised would have had their foreskin abnormalities removed, whilst the men assigned to the Control would have retained their foreskin abnormalities, thus favouring (protecting) the circumcised men in terms of susceptibility to HIV contraction. So we have a potential fundamental design error seriously affecting the RCT design and casting doubt on their results with regard to their epidemiologic viability or predictability for circumcision.

    How could the RCT designers have accounted for the real possibility of significant self-selection bias affecting the results? Quite easily! The RCTs should have been balanced by a RANDOMISED CONTROL AT THE POPULATION LEVEL (say several hundred uncircumcised men for each RCT), obtained by random invitation from the general population (these men would knowingly NOT be assigned to circumcision, so they would have no personal motive, or vested interest, to participate), and their penises examined for foreskin abnormalities and health. Like the RCT participants, they would be paid to participate as compensation. An approximately equal number of men from the RCTs (before circumcision) should have had their penises examined by equal methodology in the same way. Then by comparing foreskin health/pathology between these two groups (the randomised population-based sample as the Control), it would have been possible to assess the degree of self-selection bias that may have affected the RCT participants. We should then be in a position to evaluate (and adjust for) the significance of self-selection as a confounding factor in the RCTs.

    In the absence of knowledge of how self-selection bias of the RCT participants may have affected the results, the RCTs should be regarded as epidemiologically worthelss, or frankly put: junk science!
    In summary, the RCT results may only reflect the fact that pathological foreskin is more susecptible to HIV infection compared to the circumcised penis (which we have known for a long time).
    Moreover, the RCT results are refuted by the best type of empirical observational evidence (as I discussed above).

  3. You say that the recent Zimbabwe result – more HIV among the circumcised – is a result of resuming sex too soon after circumcision. Yet the ratio was the same in 2005, before the circumcision campaign began.
    You are right that the Wawer study of male-to-female HIV transmission in Rakai, Uganda did not reach statistical significance, but it was stopped prematurely “for futility”. There was no ethical objection to continuing (at least no more than holding such an experiment on HIV+ men and their HIV- partners at all) since the control group was already HIV+ and it had been established that circumcising them would not reduce the risk to their partners.
    Circumcision is not a new intervention. It goes back to the stone age. Even its “medical” variant goes back to the late 19th century, and it has been a “cure” looking for a disease since then.
    Because it is so intimately involved with male sexuality, it is very hard for any men to look at it objectively, and so failures of objectivity in scientific studies, such as blinding and placebo control, have disproptionate effects.
    If you look at the pro-circumcision studies you cite, you will find that a small number of interconnected researchers (Robert Bailey, Stefan Bailis, Ronald Gray, Daniel Halperin, Godfrey Kigozi, Jeffrey Klausner, Brian Morris, Stephen Moses, Malcolm Potts, Thomas Quinn, Aaron Tobian, Maria Wawer, Jake Waskett, Helen Weiss) are associated with the majority of them. Several of those have indicated their own pro-circumcision bias, since they supported circumcision for other purposes before the HIV studies came out, or, for example one (Halperin) claims his descent from a ritual circumciser has made him “destined” to promote circumcision.
    You are to be commended for trying harder than many to be objective, but an underlying tendency to support the prevailing orthodoxy shows through.

Share your thoughts

*

%d bloggers like this: