A
study from Orange Farm near Johannesburg in South Africa, the area that hosted the
first-ever randomised controlled trial of male circumcision for HIV prevention,
which concluded in 2005, has found evidence that women who are partners of
circumcised men are less likely to have HIV themselves.
A
2009 meta-analysis (Weiss) of the benefits to women of circumcising men found
no evidence that having sex with a circumcised, rather than an uncircumcised,
man reduced the risk of HIV infection to women, though there have been studies
that show that male circumcision reduces the risk of human papillomavirus (HPV)
and genital herpes (HSV2) in women.
But
this is the first study to provide convincing evidence that male circumcision offers a degree of protection to their female partners too –
although the benefit is quite small, in the order of a 15% reduction in
prevalence in women who only have sex with circumcised men.
Background
A voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) centre called Bophelo
Pele was set up in 2008, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, after the results from the Orange Farm randomised
controlled trial were confirmed by two other large trials in Uganda and Kenya.
Since
Bophelo Pele started, the proportion of local men who are circumcised has risen
from 15% to 53% and a recent survey found that HIV
prevalence in the area was 50% lower in circumcised than uncircumcised men.
Mathematical
models show that circumcision will eventually benefit women through the general
fall in HIV prevalence in the population, but a direct benefit has been hard to
prove.
This
is especially the case in an area like Orange Farm, where prevalence is very
high in women. Although the survey of men last year found that HIV prevalence
in uncircumcised men was 19% and circumcised men 7% (average was 12%), in women
prevalence is 30%, and in the peak age of 30-34 rises to 38%.
Findings
Among women who report ever having had sex, 30.0% in the
present study reported having had only circumcised partners.
HIV prevalence among these women was lower
than among other sexually active women: it was 22.4% in the partners of
circumcised men and 36.6% in women who said some or all of their partners were
uncircumcised. This represents an unadjusted reduction in risk of 28%, but
after adjusting for confounders (such as the fact that the partners of
circumcised men tend to be younger, as indeed are circumcised men), the
reduction in risk was 15%. This was still statistically significant (p = 0.004).
Circumcision appears to make no difference to
the rate of condom use in what the researchers called ‘non-spousal’ sex. In
extramarital sex, women reported using condoms 37.5% of the time with
circumcised partners and 38.6% of the time with uncircumcised ones. Fifty-five
per cent of women thought condom use was easier for circumcised men.
Of women who had had sex with both, 74.4% said
they preferred circumcised men, precisely because they were seen to be less
likely to have HIV, but a relatively low 9.6% thought that if they had sex with
a man who did have HIV they would be
fully or partly protected from HIV if he was circumcised. Nine out of ten women
did understand that if a man was circumcised, he could still acquire HIV.
Between 2008 and 2012, the proportion of
women willing to have their male children circumcised rose from 83.0% to 96.0%.
Conclusions
"This study is encouraging for the current
roll-out of voluntary medical male circumcision," comment the researchers.
They believe, however, that rather than there being
a direct protection for the woman, the findings on the association of women’s
HIV prevalence with their sexual partners’ circumcision status are probably due
to the lower HIV prevalence rate among circumcised men.
A longitudinal incidence study is needed to
settle the question, they add.