Uncircumcised boys and men may face more UTIs

NEW YORK Fri Dec 7, 2012 12:15pm EST

Related Topics

Photo

Ebola epidemic

Quarantines and isolation units imposed to stop the spread of the worst Ebola outbreak in history.  Slideshow 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Infections of the kidney, bladder and urethra happen in uncircumcised baby boys at ten times the rate of circumcised boys, and over a lifetime uncircumcised men are four times more likely to experience one, according to a new analysis of past research.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are most common in boys' first year of life, and circumcision was already known to make a difference in their risk, but how much and whether that carried through to adulthood was unclear, Australian researchers say.

They found that circumcision "provides considerable protection and over the lifespan makes about a three- to four-fold difference by our prediction, which is quite striking in public health terms," lead study author Brian Morris, professor of molecular medical science at the Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, told Reuters Health.

Morris and a colleague examined 22 studies published between 1987 and 2012 that included a total of 407,902 males across the globe, a quarter of whom were uncircumcised.

Breaking down the results by age, they calculated that the likelihood of a UTI between birth and one year of age is 9.9 times higher in uncircumcised boys compared to circumcised boys. Between ages 1 and 16, uncircumcised boys are at 6.6 times higher risk, and after age 16 their risk is 3.4 times that of uncircumcised men.

Based on those findings, the researchers projected that doctors could prevent one UTI with every four circumcisions, "which is astronomical," Morris said.

The younger the infant, the more serious a UTI can be, the researchers note in their report, which is published in the Journal of Urology. Side effects of a UTI in infants can include kidney scarring, fever, pain and blood infections.

Health experts have mostly framed circumcision as a public health preventive measure focused on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

In August, the American Academy of Pediatrics for the first time stated that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, but added that the decision to circumcise a child remains with parents.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently evaluating the potential health impact of circumcision, according to a spokeswoman, but any recommendations that come of that will also be voluntary, she said.

The estimated health benefit Morris and his colleague found was several times larger than what was projected in two previous studies, which suggested 111 or 195 circumcisions would be needed to prevent one case of UTI in the first year of life.

One expert questioned the new findings based on the methods Morris' team used.

Zbys Fedorowicz, director of the Bahrain branch of the UK Cochrane Centre, a non-profit organization that evaluates medical studies, said that the 22-study analysis combined different types of studies and the researchers failed to assess their quality.

"It doesn't mean to say that these guys are necessarily wrong, it's just that we don't know because the methodological approach that they used isn't thorough enough, it's not transparent, it's not reproducible and it's not clear," Fedorowicz said.

In November, Fedorowicz and colleagues published a report concluding that no existing study that examined the risk of urinary tract infections and circumcision was of high enough quality for any recommendation.

Dr. Robert Van Howe, clinical professor of pediatrics at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine and vocal critic of circumcision, also found the new study problematic.

Van Howe said that diagnostic criteria for urinary tract infections differ between researchers and that the cost/ benefit analysis of circumcision as a preventive tool for infections doesn't add up.

At $200 each circumcision, preventing one urinary tract infection would cost $40,000, "which you can treat with an $18 antibiotic; it's overkill," Van Howe said.

"You would think we have long lists for dialysis in men because they're not circumcised, but it just isn't a problem, it's fear mongering," Van Howe told Reuters Health.

A middle ground might be to let boys decide for themselves at age 14 or 16 to become circumcised, Van Howe suggested. "You can leave this choice up to the person who has to live with the consequences," Van Howe said.

Morris maintains that the study sends "a really strong signal for advocacy of circumcision as a public health intervention in reducing these various - and in many cases very serious - conditions over the lifetime."

SOURCE: bit.ly/TJjLqA The Journal of Urology, online, November 28, 2012.

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Hugh7 wrote:
This is nonsense – shroud-waving. How can one circumcision in four prevent a UTI when only about one boy in 100 ever gets a UTI – by the circumcision advocates’ own figures? (Meaning that more than 99% of circumcisions for this purpose are inevitably wasted.) This is a meta-analysis, a study of studies, which notoriously suffer from “garbage in, garbage out”. Meanwhile a Finnish study has found that “The risk of long-term consequences from childhood UTI seems to be very low.”

Prof. Morris has been a strident advocate of circumcision for a long time, latching on to every possible excuse to cut (the best) part off every baby boy’s genitals – and some highly improbable, like “to prevent zipper injury”. He is a molecular biologist, not a medical doctor, and he has misused statistics to promote circumcision before.

Dec 08, 2012 4:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
scottnassmd wrote:
This is a terribly disappointing headline given the weakness of the review conducted, as judged by the experts in unbiased review at Cochrane. Even if the data, once vigorously reviewed, held up to the same rate of infection reduction, it is medically unreasonable to use this information to guide patient care. Logic alone argues against cutting off a healthy body part of a healthy patient because it might lead to infection for which quick, cheap, effective therapy exists. No patient-centered public health advocate would choose to mount a campaign against UTIs through routine circumcision – unless, of course, such a campaign was funded by large pharmaceutical companies who rely on infant foreskin sales to develop highly profitable, extended-patent products. Those of us who are physicians must respect patient autonomy at all times and “first do not harm” as we have sworn to do. Informed consent of the parents must still include statements that there is no proven medical benefit to circumcision when compared to routine hygiene practiced by humans for at least thousands of years.

Dec 11, 2012 3:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.