Current issueMale Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity
Section snippets
Background
Recent editorials have asked the global health community to scale up male circumcision for HIV prevention in regions with HIV epidemics following the publication of three randomized controlled clinical trials (RCCTs) in Africa (in South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya).1, 2, 3, 4, 5 One editorial concluded: “The proven efficacy of MC [male circumcision] and its high cost-effectiveness in the face of a persistent heterosexual HIV epidemic argues overwhelmingly for its immediate and rapid adoption.”6
General Population Correlates
Effectiveness in real-world settings rarely achieves the efficacy levels found in controlled trials, making predictions of subsequent cost-effectiveness and population-health benefits less reliable. The following related concerns deserve further scrutiny:
- 1
The three RCCTs were terminated early because results had reached significance showing reduced HIV infections in experimental compared with control groups; however, it was too soon to gauge long-term effectiveness.
- 2
The results have no relevance
Increased Risk to Women
A recent prospective study19 showed that male circumcision offered no protection to women, and an RCCT20 found that male circumcision actually increased the risk to women, presumably because they resumed sex before their circumcised male partner's open wound had healed. A 2008 WHO study21 found that 24% of ritual circumcisions and 19% of clinical circumcisions had not healed 60 days postsurgery.
Women also are placed at greater risk from unsafe sex practices when they, or their circumcised male
Substantial Complications of Male Circumcision
Traditional circumcisions increase HIV transmission risk because of contaminated equipment.26 A 2008 WHO bulletin21 reports that 35% of traditional male circumcisions in Africa result in complications, as do 18% of clinical circumcisions. Among all clinical neonatal circumcisions in Africa, 20.2% result in complications.27 The RCCTs themselves reported unacceptable levels of complication, even though these trials were conducted under optimal conditions. For example, the Ugandan trial3 reported
Cost–Benefit Considerations
Before circumcising millions of men in regions with high prevalences of HIV infection, it is important to consider alternatives. A comparison28 of male circumcision to condom use concluded that supplying free condoms is 95 times more cost effective. This mathematical modeling analysis, presented at the 2009 International AIDS Society, revealed the cost effectiveness of male circumcision to be a distant third compared to condom use or ART. The mathematical analysis showed that increasing both
Ethical Issues Unresolved
Male circumcision constitutes the removal of healthy, functional, and biologically unique tissue.29 For fully informed consent to occur, men must be educated about the risks and sensory losses from circumcision, as well as made aware that circumcision does not offer full protection. Further, any shift from condom use to reliance on circumcision for HIV prevention places men and their partners at increased risk of HIV infection. Published research30, 31 has delved into the association of
Conclusion
Recommending mass circumcision by generalizing from the particular RCCTs to the diverse populations of Africa highlights problems of external validity identified in several areas of preventive medicine and public health research. Studies published since the RCCTs show that (1) male circumcision is not correlated with lower HIV prevalence in some sub-Saharan populations14, 15; (2) circumcision is correlated with increased transmission of HIV to women20; and (3) male circumcision is not a
References (40)
- et al.
Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: A randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2007) - et al.
Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: A randomised trial
Lancet
(2007) The Prevention Research Centers as models of practice-based evidence: two decades on
Am J Prev Med
(2007)- et al.
External validity reporting in prevention research
Am J Prev Med
(2008) - et al.
HIV and male circumcision—a systematic review with assessment of the quality of studies
Lancet Infect Dis
(2005) - et al.
Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2009) - et al.
Preventing HIV: determinants of sexual behaviour
Lancet
(2000) - et al.
Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 trial
PLoS Med
(2005) - et al.
Male circumcision for HIV prevention: from evidence to action?
AIDS
(2008) - et al.
Is male circumcision as good as the vaccine we've been waiting for?
Future HIV Ther
(2008)