Circumcision may cut risk of HIV

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer

Circumcising adult men may reduce by half their risk of getting the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse, the U.S. government announced Wednesday, as it shut down two studies in Africa testing the link.

The National Institutes of Health closed the studies in Kenya and Uganda early, when safety monitors took a look at initial results this week and spotted the protection. The studies' uncircumcised men are being offered the chance to undergo the procedure.

The link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was noted as long ago as the late 1980s. The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60 percent.

Still, many AIDS specialists had been awaiting the NIH's results as a final confirmation.

"Male circumcision can lower both an individual's risk of infection, and hopefully the rate of HIV spread through the community," said AIDS expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

But it's not perfect protection, Fauci stressed. Men who become circumcised must not quit using condoms nor take other risks — and circumcision offers no protection from HIV acquired through ####### sex or injection drug use, he noted.

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De ####### of the World Health Organization.

Male circumcision is common at birth in the United States. But in sub-Saharan Africa, home to more than half of the world's almost 40 million HIV-infected people, there are large swaths of populations where male circumcision is rare.

The WHO plans an international meeting early next year to discuss the studies' results and how to translate them into policies that promote safe male circumcision — done by trained health workers with sterile equipment — while teaching men that it won't make them invulnerable.

If male circumcision were widely adopted, officials predicted that could help to avert tens of thousands of HIV infections in coming years; Fauci cited one model from South Africa that suggested possibly up to 2 million infections could be averted over a decade.

"This is tremendous news, and it could help millions of men while in turn reducing the risk faced by millions of women," said Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance.

Why would male circumcision play a role? Cells in the foreskin of the ####### are particularly susceptible to the HIV virus, Fauci explained. Also, the foreskin is more fragile than the tougher skin surrounding it, providing a surface that the virus could penetrate more easily.

Researchers enrolled 2,784 HIV-negative men in Kisumu, Kenya, and 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, into the studies. Some were circumcised; others were just monitored.

Over two years, 22 of the circumcised Kenyans became infected with HIV compared with 47 uncircumcised men, a 53 percent reduction. In Uganda, 22 circumcised men became infected vs. 43 of the uncircumcised, a 48 percent reduction.

The researchers are offering all of the studies' uncircumcised men the chance to undergo the procedure, and 80 percent of the uncircumcised Ugandans already have agreed, said lead researcher Ronald Gray of Johns Hopkins University.

Side effects were rare, including some mostly mild infections that were easily treated. The rate of side effects was comparable to those seen in circumcised U.S. infants, said Robert Bailey of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who led the Kenyan trial.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seems like old news. I've read that some time ago. I guess it's just new that the US government finally agrees with this?

[peezey 0]

Am I the only one who thinks "cut" in the title is a subversive editorial choice?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Am I the only one who thinks "cut" in the title is a subversive editorial choice?

I missed that! :oh:

[peezey 0]

Am I the only one who thinks "cut" in the title is a subversive editorial choice?

I missed that! :oh:

I'm disappointed! I thought all men would be cringing and doubling over reading the "cut" and "circumcision" in the same sentence.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Am I the only one who thinks "cut" in the title is a subversive editorial choice?

I missed that! :oh:

I'm disappointed! I thought all men would be cringing and doubling over reading the "cut" and "circumcision" in the same sentence.

I guess because I was an infant when I went under the knife so I have no traumatic memory of it.

When I had my son, I really struggled with whether or not to get him circumcized. He's now 15 and hasn't been. I'm still not sure if I did the right thing.

[Alex+R 0]

Am I the only one who thinks "cut" in the title is a subversive editorial choice?

I missed that! :oh:

I'm disappointed! I thought all men would be cringing and doubling over reading the "cut" and "circumcision" in the same sentence.

I guess because I was an infant when I went under the knife so I have no traumatic memory of it.

When I had my son, I really struggled with whether or not to get him circumcized. He's now 15 and hasn't been. I'm still not sure if I did the right thing.

Sure you did. If he wants to be circumcised, then he can have it done. Doesn't work the other way though...

[~Jess~ 0]

me and my ex had our son circ'd when he was born. we just figured that his daddy was and we wanted him to be to avoid the awakward bathroom moments later on. i am glad we did it.

[Arazia 0]

Sure you did. If he wants to be circumcised, then he can have it done. Doesn't work the other way though...

*ducks from the possibility of another debate about this*

I agree though. If the kid wants it done when they are old enough to actually understand the process, all good to them. Otherwise, not in my family.

I still think wide-spread sexual education as well as donations of contreceptives would be a hell of a lot more effective at preventing HIV than performing surgery on hundreds of thousands of africans.

[Arazia 0]

Oh, and belatedly...

Reading over the study, making definite findings on this really doesn't make much sense. We're talking about really small numbers of people here. That means that you'll have a lot higher variance of numbers. You would expect under good conditions, with a large enough group of people, that the number of infections would be about the same percentage wise between the two groups. It's not. It's actually -lower- among the -larger- of the two groups. They also don't mention how many men in each group were circumsized vs. uncircumsized. The difference could be due to more uncircumcized males than circumcized males.

This doesn't make much sense to me. I think a lot more of this can be attributed to individuals habbits than to skin or no skin. Especially as there is no mention of if the males are sexually active, if they are sexually active with HIV individuals, if they use condoms regularly or not, etc. There are too many variables not taken into account. It 'may' reduce the risk? Sure I'll buy that... but they haven't proven anything.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Arazia

[*julez* 124]

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De #######....kinda funny that he is studying the benefits of circumcision

[heishe 2]

Oh, and belatedly...

Reading over the study, making definite findings on this really doesn't make much sense. We're talking about really small numbers of people here. That means that you'll have a lot higher variance of numbers. You would expect under good conditions, with a large enough group of people, that the number of infections would be about the same percentage wise between the two groups. It's not. It's actually -lower- among the -larger- of the two groups. They also don't mention how many men in each group were circumsized vs. uncircumsized. The difference could be due to more uncircumcized males than circumcized males.

This doesn't make much sense to me. I think a lot more of this can be attributed to individuals habbits than to skin or no skin. Especially as there is no mention of if the males are sexually active, if they are sexually active with HIV individuals, if they use condoms regularly or not, etc. There are too many variables not taken into account. It 'may' reduce the risk? Sure I'll buy that... but they haven't proven anything.

The study was conducted and overseen by people and organizations who really should know what they're doing. It also matches results from other studies. I trust it.

This doesn't mean you have to get your kids circumcised.

[*julez* 124]

I mean, ya gotta trust a guy named Dr. De ####### who is researching circumcision

[Arazia 0]

The study was conducted and overseen by people and organizations who really should know what they're doing. It also matches results from other studies. I trust it.

This doesn't mean you have to get your kids circumcised.

I'm not questioning that there may be some protection.

What I'm questioning is the summary of the information given in this report. I can't make a judgement because either intentionally, or unintentionally they have left some information out. Information that is crutial to judging exactly how accurate their findings are. With just the information given, you really can't interpret the numbers. If taken just at face value, there is an average difference of .70% (less than 1%) in infection rate. That's not a whole hell of a lot.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Arazia