Biological basis for the protective effect conferred by male circumcision against HIV infection.

Here we provide an up-to-date review of research that explains why uncircumcised men are at higher risk of HIV infection. The inner foreskin is a mucosal epithelium deficient in protective keratin, yet rich in HIV target cells. Soon after sexual exposure to infected mucosal secretions of a HIV-positive partner, infected T-cells from the latter form viral synapses with keratinocytes and transfer HIV to Langerhans cells via dendrites that extend to just under the surface of the inner foreskin. The Langerhans cells with internalized HIV migrate to the basal epidermis and then pass HIV on to T-cells, thus leading to the systemic infection that ensues. Infection is exacerbated in inflammatory states associated with balanoposthitis, the presence of smegma and ulceration - including that caused by infection with herpes simplex virus type 2 and some other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). A high foreskin surface area and tearing of the foreskin or associated frenulum during sexual intercourse also facilitate HIV entry. Thus, by various means, the foreskin is the primary biological weak point that permits HIV infection during heterosexual intercourse. The biological findings could explain why male circumcision protects against HIV infection.

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