|Less rish if circumcised
Jul 28, 2005
I Dr. Bob,
I'm a former worried well and current woo hoo...and am very happy with this status I might add.
I saw a report on the news this morning that in a study it was found that if you are circumcised you have a 65% less chance of contracting HIV.
Just wondering if this is true and if so how?
Anyways...thanks for the good work.
| Response from Dr. Frascino
A study was presented at the International AIDS Society Conference in Rio de Janeiro two days ago that suggested male circumcision might reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission by 65%. I have written about the preliminary results of this study several times over the past month. I'll include one of those posts from the archives as well as a recent summary of the presentation and reaction to this news. That should bring you up to date on whether you should call the mohel.
Stay tuned to The Body for additional information as this story evolves.
Male Circumcision Might Reduce Risk of Female-to-Male HIV Transmission by About 65%, Study Presented at IAS Meeting Says July 27, 2005
Male circumcision can reduce by about 65% the risk of men contracting HIV through sexual intercourse with women, according to a study conducted by French and South African researchers and presented Tuesday at the 3rd International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, BBC News reports (BBC News, 7/26). The randomized, controlled clinical trial enrolled more than 3,000 HIV-negative, uncircumcised men ages 18 to 24 living in a South African township (AFP/Yahoo! News, 7/26). Half of the men were randomly assigned to be circumcised, and the other half served as a control group, remaining uncircumcised (Reuters Health, 7/26). Bertrand Auvert, who coordinated the study for France's National AIDS Research Agency, said that after 21 months, 51 of the uncircumcised men had contracted HIV, compared with 18 of the circumcised men. The procedure "prevented six to seven out of 10 potential HIV infections," Auvert said (Astor, AP/Long Island Newsday, 7/27). He added that because the men in the study identified themselves as heterosexual, the results cannot be generalized to male-to-male or male-to-female transmission (Reuters Health, 7/26).
Although UNAIDS expressed "considerable interest" in the study, the agency emphasized that more research is required to determine the true effectiveness of circumcision in preventing female-to-male HIV transmission. The results of two NIH-funded studies under way in Kenya and Uganda could shed more light on male circumcision in different social and cultural environments. If circumcision proves to be an effective tool to help curb the spread of HIV, the procedure still will need to be part of a comprehensive prevention package. "Although UNAIDS believes that it is premature to recommend male circumcision services as part of HIV prevention programs, there is heightened interest from governments and the general public in male circumcision in a number of African countries," the agency said in a release (UNAIDS release, 7/26). "While these results are very promising, we need to put them in a broader context to see the full benefits of circumcision," Charles Gilks, head of treatment, prevention and scale up at the World Health Organization HIV/AIDS Programme, said. Gilks said he worries that the study could make many circumcised men believe they cannot contract HIV and lead them to engage in sex without a condom. In addition, he said WHO is rushing to set guidelines for safe and hygienic circumcision, as many men might seek to undergo the procedure after hearing of the study results. Gilks also said he is concerned that traditional healers might try to perform circumcisions without the proper training and without educating men about HIV/AIDS prevention methods (AP/Long Island Newsday, 7/27).
low risk or no risk? (uncut)Jul 8, 2005
first of all, i want to thank you for this great job that you are doing!
my question is with regards to circumcision, i read in your previous forums that being uncut doesnt increase your risks, however yesterday I read a study on your website that in fact there is more risk for uncut men. I had unprotected insertive oral with a sex worker recently, and no other escapades since then...also, in the older forums, i noticed that questions regarding insertive oral used to be answered by no risk or virtually none but recently its become low risk and .5 in ten thousand.... what brings up this difference?
Heading towards one month waiting to reach three month mark so I can test. What are your thoughts? Been feeling a lot of fatigue lately, dont know if its a symptom or just me worrying.
Response from Dr. Bob Hi,
Here's the latest scoop on cut versus uncut: a French and South African study was recently halted early because initial results indicated that adult male circumcision reduced the risk of HIV infection. The report stated that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent. (That's even better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for some HIV/AIDS vaccine trials!) The circumcision study was stopped early because it was deemed unethical to continue the trial after this preliminary data showed such dramatic results. The men in the study had been followed for at least a year.
The reason this is making news is because this was the first of three large clinical trials looking at circumcision and HIV risk. There are a lot (30 or more) of smaller, not very rigorous studies that have been done in the past suggesting cut men were less likely to become infected.
There are two other studies still in process one in Uganda, the other in Kenya. If these studies confirm what this first well-controlled trial shows, circumcision could significantly decrease the number of new infections per year currently nearly five million!
Laboratory studies have shown that the foreskin contains lots of white blood cells, which can be a target of HIV. Consequently, surgical removal of the foreskin a relatively simple, low-cost and permanent medical intervention may well have a significant protective effect.
Stay posted to The Body and we'll keep you informed as this story unfolds (or should that be gets cut off?).
Regarding the estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV by various exposure routes, it continues to evolve as we get new information. (Except of course in Kansas, because as everyone knows, there is no evolution in Kansas.) The statistic you quote is form a recent CDC publication.
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.