Criticisms of African trials fail to withstand scrutiny: male circumcision does prevent HIV infection.

A recent article in the JLM (Boyle GJ and Hill G, "Sub-Saharan African Randomised Clinical Trials into Male Circumcision and HIV Transmission: Methodological, Ethical and Legal Concerns" (2011) 19 JLM 316) criticises the large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that scientists, clinicians and policy-makers worldwide have concluded provide compelling evidence in support of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) as an effective HIV prevention strategy. The present article addresses the claims advanced by Boyle and Hill, demonstrating their reliance on outmoded evidence, outlier studies, and flawed statistical analyses. In the current authors' view, their claims portray misunderstandings of the design, execution and interpretation of findings from RCTs in general and of the epidemiology of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa in particular. At the same time they ignore systematic reviews and meta-analyses using all available data arising from good-quality research studies, including RCTs. Denial of the evidence supporting lack of male circumcision as a major determinant of HIV epidemic patterns in sub-Saharan Africa is unsubstantiated and risks undermining the evidence-based, large-scale roll-out of VMMC for HIV prevention currently underway. The present article highlights the quality, consistency and robustness of the scientific evidence that underpins the public health recommendations, guidance, and tools on VMMC. Millions of HIV infections will be averted in the coming decades as VMMC services scale-up to meet demand, providing direct benefits for heterosexual men and indirect benefits for their female partners.

A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?

BACKGROUND: Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves. DISCUSSION: We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used. SUMMARY: Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.

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.

The Strong Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis.

Male circumcision protects against cancer of the penis, the invasive form of which is a devastating disease confined almost exclusively to uncircumcised men. Major etiological factors are phimosis, balanitis, and high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV), which are more prevalent in the glans penis and coronal sulcus covered by the foreskin, as well as on the penile shaft, of uncircumcised men. Circumcised men clear HPV infections more quickly. Phimosis (a constricted foreskin opening impeding the passage of urine) is confined to uncircumcised men, in whom balanitis (affecting 10%) is more common than in circumcised men. Each is strongly associated with risk of penile cancer. These findings have led to calls for promotion of male circumcision, especially in infancy, to help reduce the global burden of penile cancer. Even more relevant globally is protection from cervical cancer, which is 10-times more common, being much higher in women with uncircumcised male partners. Male circumcision also provides indirect protection against various other infections in women, along with direct protection for men from a number of genital tract infections, including HIV. Given that adverse consequences of medical male circumcision, especially when performed in infancy, are rare, this simple prophylactic procedure should be promoted.

Exposé of misleading claims that male circumcision will increase HIV infections in Africa.

Despite over two decades of extensive research showing that male circumcision protects against heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men, and that includes findings from large randomized controlled trials leading to acceptance by the WHO/UNAIDS and the Cochrane Committee, opponents of circumcision continue to generate specious arguments to the contrary. In a recent issue of the Journal of Public Health in Africa, Van Howe and Storms claim that male circumcision will increase HIV infections in Africa. Here we review the statements they use in support of their thesis and show that there is no scientific basis to such an assertion. We also evaluate the statistics used and show that when these data are properly analyzed the results lead to a contrary conclusion affirming the major role of male circumcision in protecting against HIV infection in Africa. Researchers, policy makers and the wider community should rely on balanced scholarship when assessing scientific evidence. We trust that our assessment may help refute the claims by Van Howe and Storms, and provide reassurance on the importance of circumcision for HIV prevention.

Expose of Fallacious Claims that Male Circumcision will Increase HIV Infections in Africa

Despite over two decades of extensive research showing that male circumcision protects against heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men; and that includes findings from large randomized controlled trials leading to acceptance by the WHO/UNAIDS and the Cochrane Committee; opponents of circumcision continue to generate specious arguments to the contrary. In a recent issue of the Journal of Public Health in Africa; Van Howe and Storms claim that male circumcision will increase HIV infections in Africa. Here we review the statements they use in support of their thesis and show that there is no scientific basis to such an assertion. We also evaluate the statistics used and show that when these data are properly analyzed the results lead to a contrary conclusion affirming the major role of male circumcision in protecting against HIV infection in Africa. Researchers; policy makers and the wider community should rely on balanced scholarship when assessing scientific evidence. We trust that our assessment may help refute the claims by Van Howe and Storms; and provide reassurance on the importance of circumcision for HIV prevention