Male Circumcision Ineffective in HIV Battle According to New Future HIV Therapy Report

Promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could lead to more HIV infections, warns a new paper published today in the May issue of Future HIV Therapy. Promoting circumcision will drain millions, possibly billions, of dollars away from more effective prevention strategies, and cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications.

West Lafayette, IN (PRWEB) May 6, 2008 – Promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could lead to more HIV infections, warns a new paper published in the May issue of Future HIV Therapy.

Lead author Dr. Lawrence Green says, "Having served on both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Community Preventive Services Task Force, which do systematic reviews of research to arrive at government-supported evidence-based guidelines for practice, I believe the African studies on the basis of which some are promoting circumcision as HIV prevention would be classified at best as 'insufficient evidence’ by both panels."

"Promoting circumcision will drain millions, possibly billions, of dollars away from more effective prevention strategies," cautions co-author John Travis, MD, "and cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications, further straining an already overwhelmed healthcare system and undermining the current ABC (abstinence, be faithful, and use condoms) campaigns by creating a false sense of immunity and increasing risk-taking behaviors. African males are already lining up to be circumcised, believing that they will no longer need to wear condoms, and this is a serious concern."

Travis says, "The African studies were conducted in atypically sanitary clinics with highly skilled operators and cannot be extrapolated to the general population. The studies have been criticized for their poor science including: the men were paid to be circumcised, received free condoms and extensive education, and the studies were halted after only 21 to 24 month periods."

During the course of these studies, 77 fewer circumcised than uncircumcised males contracted HIV, however, the circumcised group needed to refrain from sex to recoup from surgery, and they were receiving extensive monitoring and counseling about sexual behavior. Also, hundreds of study participants were lost to follow-up. "There is not enough evidence to conclude circumcision would offer any real long-term benefit in the HIV battle. Even if circumcision did reduce the risk of HIV infections, condoms and safe-sex practices are still far more effective. If an individual is engaging in high-risk behavior, he and his partner are at risk, regardless of whether he is circumcised or not."

The paper also cautions against neonatal circumcision for HIV prevention, stating it is unethical to circumcise an infant for a possible benefit 15–20 years later, if at all, to reduce the risk of contracting an adult-acquired disease for which there are far more effective prevention strategies available.

Circumcision proponents, hailing from English-speaking countries, have been intensely lobbying world health agencies to adopt male circumcision as an additional HIV-prevention tool based on the release of three African randomized clinical trials reporting reduced HIV infections during their study periods.

Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations. For example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males. A 2007 study showed that, once commercial sex worker patterns were taken into consideration, circumcision status was irrelevant in HIV infection rates.