OBJECTIVE: To assess whether male circumcision of the primary sex partner is associated with women's risk of HIV. DESIGN: Data were analyzed from 4417 Ugandan and Zimbabwean women participating in a prospective study of hormonal contraception and HIV acquisition. Most were recruited from family planning clinics; some in Uganda were referred from higher-risk settings such as sexually transmitted disease clinics. METHODS: Using Cox proportional hazards models, time to HIV acquisition was compared for women with circumcised or uncircumcised primary partners. Possible misclassification of male circumcision was assessed using sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, 74% reported uncircumcised primary partners, 22% had circumcised partners and 4% had partners of unknown circumcision status. Median follow-up was 23 months, during which 210 women acquired HIV (167, 34, and 9 women whose primary partners were uncircumcised, circumcised, or of unknown circumcision status, respectively). Although unadjusted analyses indicated that women with circumcised partners had lower HIV risk than those with uncircumcised partners, the protective effect disappeared after adjustment for other risk factors [hazard ratio (HR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.53]. Subgroup analyses suggested a non-significant protective effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition among Ugandan women referred from higher-risk settings: adjusted HR 0.16 (95% CI, 0.02-1.25) but little effect in Ugandans (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.72-2.47) or Zimbabweans (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.65-1.91) from family planning clinics. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment, male circumcision was not significantly associated with women's HIV risk. The potential protection offered by male circumcision for women recruited from high-risk settings warrants further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether male circumcision of the primary sex partner is associated with women's risk of HIV. DESIGN: Data were analyzed from 4417 Ugandan and Zimbabwean women participating in a prospective study of hormonal contraception and HIV acquisition. Most were recruited from family planning clinics; some in Uganda were referred from higher-risk settings such as sexually transmitted disease clinics. METHODS: Using Cox proportional hazards models, time to HIV acquisition was compared for women with circumcised or uncircumcised primary partners. Possible misclassification of male circumcision was assessed using sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, 74% reported uncircumcised primary partners, 22% had circumcised partners and 4% had partners of unknown circumcision status. Median follow-up was 23 months, during which 210 women acquired HIV (167, 34, and 9 women whose primary partners were uncircumcised, circumcised, or of unknown circumcision status, respectively). Although unadjusted analyses indicated that women with circumcised partners had lower HIV risk than those with uncircumcised partners, the protective effect disappeared after adjustment for other risk factors [hazard ratio (HR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.53]. Subgroup analyses suggested a non-significant protective effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition among Ugandan women referred from higher-risk settings: adjusted HR 0.16 (95% CI, 0.02-1.25) but little effect in Ugandans (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.72-2.47) or Zimbabweans (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.65-1.91) from family planning clinics. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment, male circumcision was not significantly associated with women's HIV risk. The potential protection offered by male circumcision for women recruited from high-risk settings warrants further investigation.
Authors: T C Quinn; M J Wawer; N Sewankambo; D Serwadda; C Li; F Wabwire-Mangen; M O Meehan; T Lutalo; R H Gray Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronald H Gray; Godfrey Kigozi; David Serwadda; Frederick Makumbi; Stephen Watya; Fred Nalugoda; Noah Kiwanuka; Lawrence H Moulton; Mohammad A Chaudhary; Michael Z Chen; Nelson K Sewankambo; Fred Wabwire-Mangen; Melanie C Bacon; Carolyn F M Williams; Pius Opendi; Steven J Reynolds; Oliver Laeyendecker; Thomas C Quinn; Maria J Wawer Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-02-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R H Gray; N Kiwanuka; T C Quinn; N K Sewankambo; D Serwadda; F W Mangen; T Lutalo; F Nalugoda; R Kelly; M Meehan; M Z Chen; C Li; M J Wawer Journal: AIDS Date: 2000-10-20 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Steven J Reynolds; Mary E Shepherd; Arun R Risbud; Raman R Gangakhedkar; Ronald S Brookmeyer; Anand D Divekar; Sanjay M Mehendale; Robert C Bollinger Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-03-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bruce K Patterson; Alan Landay; Joan N Siegel; Zareefa Flener; Dennis Pessis; Antonio Chaviano; Robert C Bailey Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Kristina Rothaeusler; Zhong-Min Ma; Huma Qureshi; Timothy D Carroll; Tracy Rourke; Michael B McChesney; Christopher J Miller Journal: J Virol Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Zhong-Min Ma; Brandon F Keele; Huma Qureshi; Mars Stone; Veronique Desilva; Linda Fritts; Jeffrey D Lifson; Christopher J Miller Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Abigail Norris Turner; Charles S Morrison; Nancy S Padian; Jay S Kaufman; Frieda M Behets; Robert A Salata; Francis A Mmiro; Tsungai Chipato; David D Celentano; Sungwal Rugpao; William C Miller Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Timothy B Hallett; Kanwarjit Singh; Jennifer A Smith; Richard G White; Laith J Abu-Raddad; Geoff P Garnett Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240