American researchers wanted to understand why ciconcision offered better protection against STDs such as AIDS. The answer is in the microbiome.
Several studies have shown in the past that circumcision offered better protection against STDs, including AIDS. Researchers at the University of Washington have tried to understand why. The results of their research published in the journal Mbio show that the response is localized in the microbiome of the penis, that is to say all the bacteria that colonize an organ.
By comparing the microbiome of circumcised men and that of men who were not circumcised one year after the samples were taken, the researchers showed that the bacterial load in all circumcised men was significantly reduced. In uncircumcised men, the accumulated bacteria activate cells in the foreskin preventing them from carrying out their normal antiviral role.
The objective of this study, the researchers specify, was not to show that all men should be circumcised but to identify a group of bacteria that increase the risk of HIV infection in order to reproduce it and thus reduce the risk. infection.
This study will once again fuel the debates on the interest of circumcision. “It is healthier for young boys to be circumcised. And insurance should reimburse circumcision ”. This position does not come from a community lobby but from the very serious American Academy of Pediatrics. In 2012, the AAP spoke out unambiguously in favor of circumcision by putting forward medical but also economic arguments. Supporting studies.
The first, of short duration, dates back to 2005. Conducted by the National AIDS Research Agency (ANRS) in South Africa, it demonstrated a 60% reduction in the risk of HIV transmission in circumcised men with heterosexual intercourse. In 2007, two other trials conducted by the National Institutes of Health, one in Kenya and the other in Uganda, confirmed the preventive effect of circumcision: the risk of HIV infection was reduced by 50%.
From an economic point of view, the AAP recalled the results of a study carried out by American academics. According to them, each circumcision not performed would cost the American health care system $ 313. A slate due to the costs of care for sexually transmitted infections that could not have been avoided.
Across the Atlantic, the subject is less clear-cut on the economic ground. “Recommend circumcision to everyone and pay for it by social security would not be of interest in France, and in all Western countries, qualified Professor Willy Rozenbaum, co-discoverer of the AIDS virus. Circumcision only brings a cost-effective benefit in countries where the HIV prevalence rate is very high, such as in Africa ”. However, to date, no serious study has been carried out in a Western country.
In 2007, the National AIDS Council in 2007 considered that circumcision was “a questionable method of reducing the risk of HIV transmission”. Same story with the World Health Organization. The WHO is certainly leading campaigns in favor of circumcision in some African countries, urging them to provide care, “free of charge or at as low a cost as possible given the potential benefits that the expansion of circumcision services could bring. have on public health ”. In fact, a new HIV infection would be avoided for each group of 5 to 15 circumcised men… but only in regions where HIV prevalence exceeds 15%.
.
