The Role of Circumcision in Preventing STIs

CDC's Male Circumcision Recommendations Represent a Key Public Health Measure

“…As well as substantial protection against HIV, data from the African RCTs reinforced the ability of MC to protect against several other STIs in heterosexual males, 10 , 11 , 13 , 16 , 71 , 82 – 90 as well as their female sex partners 10 , 91 – 95 and among MSM who are insertive-only 96 – 100 . With regard to MSM in particular, a Cochrane analysis of MC and HIV prevalence among MSM found results were statistically significant among 3,465 men in 7 studies reporting an insertive role (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.44; I 2 =0%), but were not significant among 1,792 men in 3 studies reporting a receptive role (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 2.29; I 2 = 0%).” 1 , 80 MC also reduces the risk of potentially fatal penile, prostate, and cervical cancer 10 , 16 – 18 , 101 – 104 .…”

Review: A critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries

“…Such obfuscation (because relevant data for Australia is lacking) misrepresents the strong evidence that MC protects against oncogenic types of human papillomavirus (HPVs) (Albero, Castellsagué, Giuliano, & Bosch, 2012; Larke, Thomas, Dos Santos Silva, & Weiss, 2011a; Morris et al, 2011a), herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) (Cherpes, Meyne, Krohn, & Hiller, 2003) and various other STIs in heterosexual men and their female partners in other developed, as well as developing, countries (Morris & Castellsague, 2011; Tobian et al, 2010; Tobian & Gray, 2011). History of STI amongst circumcised men was 3-fold lower in a longitudinal New Zealand study (Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood, 2006) and 2-fold lower amongst MSM in London gyms (Thornton, Lattimore, Delpech, Weiss, & Elford, 2010).…”

“…Infant MC may afford greater protection against penile cancer than MC later in life (Larke, Thomas, Dos Santos Silva, & Weiss, 2011b; Morris et al, 2011a). It is simpler, quicker, cheaper, more convenient, lower risk and provides a better cosmetic outcome than circumcision later (Morris & Eley, 2011; Sansom et al, 2010; Schoen, Wiswell, & Moses, 2000; Tobian et al, 2010; Weiss, Larke, Halperin, & Schenker, 2010; WHO and JHPIEGO, 2010). Wound healing is, moreover, quicker (Bermudez, Canning, & Liechty, 2011).…”

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

“…It questioned, “ whether we should continue unwarranted male circumcisions , especially when the major tenet of medical ethics is ‘ do no harm ’.” The article failed to account for the substantial medical benefits of male circumcision reported during the previous five years [6,24-28], especially that from several high quality male circumcision trials [29]. Its reliance on the somewhat ambivalent 1999 AAP policy statement may explain its conclusion.…”