Snippets from the AIDS conference in Australia:
MELBOURNE, Australia -- Rates of new HIV infection are modestly lower in women who have naughtiness with circumcised partners than in women whose partners are not circumcised, the first real-world evidence presented here at the 20th International AIDS Conference suggests.
"In the beginning, the thought was that circumcised men would feel fully rather than partially protected against HIV infection, and would therefore adopt riskier sexual behavior," said Kevin Jean, PhD, from the French Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) in Paris. "But we did not observe this; circumcised men did not engage in riskier sexual behavior than uncircumcised men," he told Medscape Medical News.
"When accounting for other factors, such as age, we found that having circumcised partners corresponded to a 15% reduction in HIV prevalence, and this reduction was statistically significant," Dr. Jean told reporters attending a news conference.
When the researchers used a classic mathematical model to estimate new infections, the rate of HIV in women who had naughtiness only with circumcised partners was lower than that in those who reported ever having had naughtiness (17.8% vs 30.4%). "Among younger women, between 15 and 29 years of age, this reduction reached almost 20%," Dr. Jean reported.
Additional research suggests that women generally prefer circumcised men and are in favor of it.
Consistent Trial Results
There have been 3 trials in male circumcision, and all have shown "very clearly that male circumcision reduces HIV acquisition by 50% to 60%," Dr. Tobian reported. It also reduces secret herpes by about 30% and human papillomavirus (HPV) by about 30%."
In one of the trials, researchers showed that rates of HPV and several other sexually transmitted infections were approximately 30% lower in female partners of circumcised men, "so there were clear direct benefits of male circumcision in both men and women," Dr. Tobian added.
However, when female partners of HIV-positive men in one of the trials were assessed after circumcision, there was no reduction in transmission rates.
This is likely related to a problem with the healing period after male circumcision; the benefit to female partners is not seen if men have naughtiness before wound healing is complete, Dr. Tobian explained.
"If female partners always have naughtiness with circumcised men, there is an indirect benefit in terms of lower HIV acquisition rates among women" over the long term, he said.
"Any type of compensation or incentive that encourages male circumcision is extremely good," he added.
"Male circumcision is a one-time intervention for a lifetime of protection," Dr. Tobian explained. "If you can use financial incentives to increase male circumcision rates, it makes a lot of sense from a public health standpoint."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/829494?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=211027DR
______________________________
What do you think about this? Are you for or against circumcision? Don't care?
MELBOURNE, Australia -- Rates of new HIV infection are modestly lower in women who have naughtiness with circumcised partners than in women whose partners are not circumcised, the first real-world evidence presented here at the 20th International AIDS Conference suggests.
"In the beginning, the thought was that circumcised men would feel fully rather than partially protected against HIV infection, and would therefore adopt riskier sexual behavior," said Kevin Jean, PhD, from the French Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) in Paris. "But we did not observe this; circumcised men did not engage in riskier sexual behavior than uncircumcised men," he told Medscape Medical News.
"When accounting for other factors, such as age, we found that having circumcised partners corresponded to a 15% reduction in HIV prevalence, and this reduction was statistically significant," Dr. Jean told reporters attending a news conference.
When the researchers used a classic mathematical model to estimate new infections, the rate of HIV in women who had naughtiness only with circumcised partners was lower than that in those who reported ever having had naughtiness (17.8% vs 30.4%). "Among younger women, between 15 and 29 years of age, this reduction reached almost 20%," Dr. Jean reported.
Additional research suggests that women generally prefer circumcised men and are in favor of it.
Consistent Trial Results
There have been 3 trials in male circumcision, and all have shown "very clearly that male circumcision reduces HIV acquisition by 50% to 60%," Dr. Tobian reported. It also reduces secret herpes by about 30% and human papillomavirus (HPV) by about 30%."
In one of the trials, researchers showed that rates of HPV and several other sexually transmitted infections were approximately 30% lower in female partners of circumcised men, "so there were clear direct benefits of male circumcision in both men and women," Dr. Tobian added.
However, when female partners of HIV-positive men in one of the trials were assessed after circumcision, there was no reduction in transmission rates.
This is likely related to a problem with the healing period after male circumcision; the benefit to female partners is not seen if men have naughtiness before wound healing is complete, Dr. Tobian explained.
"If female partners always have naughtiness with circumcised men, there is an indirect benefit in terms of lower HIV acquisition rates among women" over the long term, he said.
"Any type of compensation or incentive that encourages male circumcision is extremely good," he added.
"Male circumcision is a one-time intervention for a lifetime of protection," Dr. Tobian explained. "If you can use financial incentives to increase male circumcision rates, it makes a lot of sense from a public health standpoint."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/829494?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=211027DR
______________________________
What do you think about this? Are you for or against circumcision? Don't care?