How to contain generalized HIV epidemics? A plea for better evidence to displace speculation

Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate evidence against male circumcision (MC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

Database searches retrieved 297 publications for inclusion. Bibliographies of these yielded 101 more. After evaluation we found: Claims that MC carries high risk were contradicted by low frequency of adverse events that were virtually all minor and easily treated with complete resolution. Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm. Claims that MC impairs sexual function and pleasure were contradicted by high-quality studies finding no adverse effect. Claims disputing the medical benefits of MC were contradicted by a large body of high-quality evidence indicating protection against a wide range of infections, dermatological conditions, and genital cancers in males and the female sexual partners of men. Risk-benefit analyses reported that benefits exceed risks by 100-200 to 1. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, the evidence supported early infant MC rather than arguments that the procedure should be delayed until males are old enough to decide for themselves. Claims that MC of minors is unethical were contradicted by balanced evaluations of ethical issues supporting the rights of children to be provided with low-risk, high-benefit interventions such as MC for better health. Expert evaluations of case-law supported the legality of MC of minors. Other data demonstrated that early infant MC is cost-saving to health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low-quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.

Circumcision as a primary HIV preventive: extrapolating from the available data

Billions of dollars to circumcise millions of African males as an HIV infection prevention have been sought, yet the effectiveness of circumcision has not been demonstrated. Data from 109 populations comparing HIV prevalence and incidence in men based on circumcision status were evaluated using meta-regression. The impact on the association between circumcision and HIV incidence/prevalence of the HIV risk profile of the population, the circumcision rates within the population and whether the population was in Africa were assessed. No significant difference in the risk of HIV infection based on the circumcision status was seen in general populations. Studies of high-risk populations and populations with a higher prevalence of male circumcision reported significantly greater odds ratios (odds of intact man having HIV) (p < .0001). When adjusted for the impact of a high-risk population and the circumcision rate of the population, the baseline odds ratio was 0.78 (95% CI = 0.56-1.09). No consistent association between presence of HIV infection and circumcision status of adult males in general populations was found. When adjusted for other factors, having a foreskin was not a significant risk factor. This undermines the justification for using circumcision as a primary preventive for HIV infection.

Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released a policy statement and technical report on circumcision, in both of which the organisation suggests that the health benefits conferred by the surgical removal of the foreskin in infancy definitively outweigh the risks and complications associated with the procedure. While these new documents do not positively recommend neonatal circumcision, they do paradoxically conclude that its purported benefits 'justify access to this procedure for families who choose it,' claiming that whenever and for whatever reason it is performed, it should be covered by government health insurance. The policy statement and technical report suffer from several troubling deficiencies, ultimately undermining their credibility. These deficiencies include the exclusion of important topics and discussions, an incomplete and apparently partisan excursion through the medical literature, improper analysis of the available information, poorly documented and often inaccurate presentation of relevant findings, and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence given.

Sexually transmitted infections and male circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The claim that circumcision reduces the risk of sexually transmitted infections has been repeated so frequently that many believe it is true. A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed on studies of genital discharge syndrome versus genital ulcerative disease, genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital ulcerative disease, chancroid, syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, and contracting a sexually transmitted infection of any type. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes, and human papillomavirus are not significantly impacted by circumcision. Syphilis showed mixed results with studies of prevalence suggesting intact men were at great risk and studies of incidence suggesting the opposite. Intact men appear to be of greater risk for genital ulcerative disease while at lower risk for genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, genital warts, and the overall risk of any sexually transmitted infection. In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries

A potential impediment to evidence-based policy development on medical male circumcision (MC) for HIV prevention in all countries worldwide is the uncritical acceptance by some of arguments used by opponents of this procedure. Here we evaluate recent opinion-pieces of 13 individuals opposed to MC. We find that these statements misrepresent good studies, selectively cite references, some containing fallacious information, and draw erroneous conclusions. In marked contrast, the scientific evidence shows MC to be a simple, low-risk procedure with very little or no adverse long-term effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sensation during arousal or overall satisfaction. Unscientific arguments have been recently used to drive ballot measures aimed at banning MC of minors in the USA, eliminate insurance coverage for medical MC for low-income families, and threaten large fines and incarceration for health care providers. Medical MC is a preventative health measure akin to immunisation, given its protective effect against HIV infection, genital cancers and various other conditions. Protection afforded by neonatal MC against a diversity of common medical conditions starts in infancy with urinary tract infections and extends throughout life. Besides protection in adulthood against acquiring HIV, MC also reduces morbidity and mortality from multiple other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and genital cancers in men and their female sexual partners. It is estimated that over their lifetime one-third of uncircumcised males will suffer at least one foreskin-related medical condition. The scientific evidence indicates that medical MC is safe and effective. Its favourable risk/benefit ratio and cost/benefit support the advantages of medical MC.

Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current evidence and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa

Heterosexual exposure accounts for most HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, and this mode, as a proportion of new infections, is escalating globally. The scientific evidence accumulated over more than 20 years shows that among the strategies advocated during this period for HIV prevention, male circumcision is one of, if not, the most efficacious epidemiologically, as well as cost-wise. Despite this, and recommendation of the procedure by global policy makers, national implementation has been slow. Additionally, some are not convinced of the protective effect of male circumcision and there are also reports, unsupported by evidence, that non-sex-related drivers play a major role in HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. Here, we provide a critical evaluation of the state of the current evidence for male circumcision in reducing HIV infection in light of established transmission drivers, provide an update on programmes now in place in this region, and explain why policies based on established scientific evidence should be prioritized. We conclude that the evidence supports the need to accelerate the implementation of medical male circumcision programmes for HIV prevention in generalized heterosexual epidemics, as well as in countering the growing heterosexual transmission in countries where HIV prevalence is presently low.

AIDS epidemiology in Africa: a changing of the guard

With recent implementation of studies specifically designed to empirically assess the contribution of both sexual and blood-borne exposures to local HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, and with the arrival of a new generation of investigators, a picture of HIV transmission routes of improved validity is emerging. Seven years ago the International Journal of STD & AIDS (IJSA) began actively encouraging reexamination of the prevailing view that penile-vaginal sex was driving African HIV epidemics, welcoming debate via manuscript submission and presentation of fresh scientific evidence. Although the IJSA-published dissenting views have largely been ignored, dismissed or fiercely resisted by established HIV researchers and allied health agencies, new approaches may yet elicit more rational, evidence-based responses. Several such contributions appear in IJSA's present theme issue on aspects of HIV epidemiology in Africa. The focus on recent empiric data, rather than on modelling or speculation, no longer leaves reasonable doubt that sexual behaviours are insufficient to explain 'Why Africa?' It is fitting that this progress was encouraged, from beginning to end, by long-time, and now departing IJSA Editor-in-Chief, Dr Wallace Dinsmore.

Political determinants of variable aetiology resonance: explaining the African AIDS epidemics

Notwithstanding the massive social and economic disruptions caused by HIV/AIDS in many sub-Saharan countries, the epidemic does not pose a serious political threat to African governments. Based on an analysis of today's dominant aetiologic framing of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, this paper argues that the behaviour-centred explanatory approach contributes to the political domestication of the epidemic. The behavioural aetiology suffers from a double reductionism: It concentrates on sexual transmission only and, within sexual transmission, it focuses exclusively on the immediate cause of transmission (unprotected sex), omitting that biological co-factors increase populations' vulnerability to infection. By overlooking these non-behaviour-related determinants of sexual HIV transmission, this explanatory approach implicitly blames individual behaviours for the spread of the virus. Conversely, the likely underestimation (if not the outright denial) of iatrogenic HIV transmission exonerates governments and donor agencies. The variable political resonance of different explanatory approaches is not random and the translation of the available bio-medical and epidemiological evidence into prevention measures is politically mediated.