Circumcision Can Reduce the Risk of Herpes and HPV Infection
Heterosexual men who undergo medical circumcision can significantly
reduce their risk of acquiring two common sexually transmitted
infections — herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), the cause
of genital herpes, and human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause
cancer and genital warts, according to a report in the March 26
issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. In the study,
circumcision had no effect on their risk of becoming infected with
the bacterium that causes syphilis, however.
The findings build upon earlier clinical research funded by the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), part
of the NIH, which found that circumcision decreases a man’s risk
of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse by
more than 50 percent (http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/2006/AMC12_06.htm).
"Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a scientifically
proven method for reducing a man’s risk of acquiring HIV infection
through heterosexual intercourse," says NIAID Director Anthony
S. Fauci, M.D. "This new research provides compelling evidence
that circumcision can provide some protection against genital herpes
and human papillomavirus infections as well."
The study was conducted by scientists at the Rakai Health Sciences
Program in Uganda in collaboration with researchers at the Johns
Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore,
Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, and NIAID’s Division of
Intramural Research. The collaborators examined samples from two
parallel clinical trials in Rakai that successfully proved male
circumcision as an HIV prevention method and also assessed the
surgical procedure’s ability to prevent other sexually transmitted
infections, including syphilis and HSV-2. These infections cause
genital ulcers and are associated with an increased risk of HIV
acquisition. The research team also assessed circumcision’s effect
on HPV infections, which can cause anal, cervical and penile cancers
and genital warts.
The two trials, one funded by NIAID and the other by the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, enrolled 3,393 uncircumcised men between the
ages of 15 and 49 who initially tested negative for both HIV and
HSV-2. The men were assigned at random to one of two study groups:
1,684 received immediate circumcision performed by trained medical
professionals in an outpatient setting (intervention group); and
1,709 received medical circumcision after a delay of 24 months
(control group). The researchers evaluated the volunteers at six,
12 and 24 months for HSV-2 and syphilis infection. Additionally,
a subgroup of 697 volunteers (352 participants in the intervention
group; 345 in the control group) was evaluated for HPV infection
at enrollment and at 24 months.
In analyzing the effect of circumcision on HSV-2 acquisition across
both studies, the researchers found that the cumulative probability
of HSV-2 infection was significantly lower among those volunteers
who received immediate circumcision (7.8 percent) than among those
in the control group who were circumcised at 24 months (10.3 percent).
Overall, the researchers found that medically supervised circumcision
reduced the men’s risk of HSV-2 infection by 28 percent.
The combined results from both trials also demonstrated a 35 percent
reduction in HPV prevalence among men in the intervention group.
In evaluating a subgroup of volunteers at 24 months, high-risk
HPV strains associated with certain cancers were detected in 42
of 233 men in the intervention group and in 80 of 287 men in the
control group.
Circumcision did not, however, affect the incidence of syphilis.
At 24 months, syphilis was detected in 50 men in the intervention
group and 45 members of the control group.
"The cumulative scientific evidence supporting the public
health value of medically supervised male circumcision is now overwhelming," says
Thomas C. Quinn, M.D., study co-investigator, chief of the International
HIV/STD Section in NIAID’s Laboratory of Immunoregulation and co-author
of the study. "This new research confirms the substantial
health benefits of male circumcision, including reduced acquisition
of HIV, genital herpes, HPV and genital ulcer disease."
Dr. David Serwadda, co-principal investigator and dean of Makerere
University’s School of Public Health, adds that "these findings
have significant public health implications for the control of
HIV, genital herpes and HPV in areas of high prevalence, such as
Africa, and further suggest that efforts to scale-up male circumcision
could have tremendous benefit."
"The next focus of our research will be to analyze additional
data collected in the Rakai trials to assess the degree to which
male circumcision may reduce transmission of HPV to female sexual
partners," says Johns Hopkins professor Ronald H. Gray, M.D.,
co-principal investigator. "This would be of substantial significance
because HPV causes cervical cancer."
The biological reasons why circumcision may reduce the risk of
HSV-2 and HPV infection, but not syphilis, are not entirely known.
HSV-2 and HPV multiply in epithelial cells found in the surface
skin of the penis, and the foreskin may facilitate virus entry
into those cells. Once circumcision has been performed, the risk
of epithelial infection may be reduced, the authors note. Additionally,
the analysis used to determine the effects of circumcision on syphilis
had limited statistical power, and therefore, it is difficult to
draw a firm conclusion as to whether or not circumcision may reduce
syphilis incidence, the researchers add.
During each clinic visit, volunteers were given physical examinations,
counseled on safe sex practices and offered condoms, voluntary
HIV counseling and testing. Study staff also interviewed each volunteer
to record sociodemographic characteristics and rates of specific
sexual risk behaviors. Volunteers who acquired HIV infection during
the two clinical trials were referred to Rakai Health Science Program
clinics for HIV care funded by the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief. Volunteers who acquired genital ulcers or syphilis
were also provided with appropriate medical care and treatment.
As with most strategies to prevent sexually transmitted infections,
including HIV, adult male circumcision is not completely effective.
Therefore, the authors note, safe sex practices, including consistent
condom use, are still necessary to provide the best protection
against such infections.
NIAID conducts and supports research — at NIH, throughout
the United States, and worldwide — to study the causes of
infectious and immune-mediated diseases, and to develop better
means of preventing, diagnosing and treating these illnesses. News
releases, fact sheets and other NIAID-related materials are available
on the NIAID Web site at http://www.niaid.nih.gov.
------------------------
Should boys be circumcised? Click here to see our Opposing Views debate.

Circumcision and HPV
Genital warts, also known as human papilloma virus (HPV), is the most common STD in the U.S. Its association with circumcision, has been a heavily debated topic for many years. As more recent studies enact more rigorous controls and use larger study groups, the association between circumcision and HPV has become more clear.
A classic 1993 study on HPV, came up with the conclusion that:
"Uncircumcised men had a lower prevalence of genital warts then circumcised men... The presence of the foreskin may confer non specific protection of the proximal penis from acquisition of HPV infection." [1]
A meta-analysis Performed by D.r. Robert Van Howe in 2006 found no significant association between circumcision status and HPV infection.
"The medical literature does not support the claim that circumcision reduces the risk for genital HPV infection" [2]
Most studies on HPV performed before 2006 had poor controls and relatively small study groups. In order to clear up this confusion, a recent 2008 study on HPV had an enormous study group of almost nine thousand men in the United States. This is currently the largest study on circumcision and HPV ever performed in the U.S. And since the study was performed in the U.S., the results are directly applicable to people who live in the U.S. They concluded:
"The percentage of circumcised men reporting a diagnosis of genital warts was significantly higher than uncircumcised men, 4.5% (95% CI, 3.6%–5.6%) versus 2.4% (95% CI, 1.5%–4.0%)". [3]
Circumcised men where about twice as likely to have HPV! The claim that circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women is a detestable myth with sexist implications. This is based on the presumption that circumcision prevents HPV and that HPV increases the risk for both cervical cancer and penile cancer. Since this HPV claim has been thoroughly discredited, the cervical cancer myth is also now debunked. It has now been shown that circumcision increases the risk for HPV. Hence circumcision may increase the risk of both penile and cervical cancer by increasing the spread and acquisition of HPV. The practice of circumcision could very well be a contributing factor to the prevalence of HPV in the U.S.
Nevertheless pro circumcision advocates have continued to mine for data in inapplicable communities like rural Uganda with the intent to prove that circumcision does reduce the risk for HPV. Yet, when these studies are performed they get an incredible amount of press. Why did the previous study I present not gain any publicity?
In the studies I have provided thus far, they have have used racially and socioeconomic homogeneous study groups in developed urban western settings. This is something that most if not all of these pro-circumcision studies do not account for.
The evidence for herpes is so weak i may not even bother.
References
1. ↑ Cook LS, Koutsky LA. Holmes KK. Clinical presentation of genital warts among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic. Genitourin Med 1993 Aug;69(4): 262-4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1195083 /
2. ↑ Van Howe, Robert S. (May 2007). "Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis". Journal of Infection 54 (5): 490–496. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe2006b /. Retrieved 2008-09-18.
3. ↑ Dinh, T.H.; M. Sternberg, E.F. Dunne and L.E. Markowitz (April 2008). "Genital Warts Among 18- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004". Sexually Transmitted Diseases 35 (4): 357–360. http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2008/04000/Seroepidemiology_of_Human_Papillomavirus_Type_11.8 .aspx Retrieved 2011-03-5
Circumcision advocates have attempted to validate genital cutting of children for 140 years by applying it to a very long list of unlikely diseases. The recent push to circumcise Africa began with a recommendation to circumcise adult men who elected to have it done and quickly moved to cutting infants.
A "doctor" from Vancouver who makes his fortune doing infant circumcisions and has never shown any interest in HIV / AIDS jumped on the bandwagon and rushed to Rwanda to teach infant circumcision , ostensibly to prevent HIV infection, calling it in a self-orchestrated press release, the happiest moment of his life.
This same "doctor" following the death of a Canadian infant from a botched circumcision in 2002 wrote to a Vancouver daily paper and used the opportunity of the infant's death to shill his "bloodless, painless technique."
The studies touting circumcision to prevents AIDS are highly questionable, but the press has not yet asked any tough questions.
See a recent interview with Dr. Dean Edell, entitled AIDS CIRCUMCISION FALLACY on YouTube.
Why don't we encourage safer sex with condom use and testing of partners? That makes more sense than removing vital parts of a man's body. Condom use is more indicative of helping prevent most STD's than circumcision and that helps both men and their partner's. Men who are circumcised are less likely to use a condom because it makes them less sensitive putting a latex barrier over their calloused and keratinized glans. If they are intact (not circumcised) they protest less to that bit of sensitivity loss, as their glans is not desensitized. I say encourage condom use, not removing healthy, functioning tissue from our boys and men.
Condoms can reduce the risk of herpes and HPV infections. Since they cover the glans of the penis AND the foreskin , they protect the penis from infections of that area. Men who are circumcised are less likely to want to use a condom, as it further diminishes sensation on their calloused and keratinized glans. Men who are intact (not circumcised) are more likely to use a condom because their glans is NOT calloused and keratinized and more sensitive than the circumcised man. Condoms also protect both the man and woman in intercouse, makes more sense to put on a condom than to cut off a part of