CDC circumcision guidelines


The CDC just came out with final recommendations targeting provider counseling regarding male circumcision (see circumcision cdc recommendations 2014​ in dropbox, no URL available at this time). the focus of these recommendations is to help with prevention of HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), etc. They note the following:

--the final decision about male circumcision is not only based on health considerations, but includes a variety of social, cultural, ethical and religious considerations
--3 African studies (with very high baseline prevalence of HIV) have shown a 50-60% decreased risk of HIV transmission with circumcision of men engaged in penile-vaginal sex. additionally, there was a 30% decreased transmission of HSV-2 (herpes simplex virus type-2) and HPV (human papilloma virus). note: most new HIV infections in the US occur in men who have sex with men (MSM), for which there are no data that circumcision is effective.
--their formal recommendations:
    --HIV risk assessment should be done on all who are at risk of acquiring HIV from heterosexual sex (though seems to me that this should include homosexual sex......)
    ​--adolescents and men having heterosexual sex should be informed that circumcision reduces but does not eliminate potential transmission of HIV and other STIs, though there are no data for oral or anal sex. also no data that circumcision reduces risk of transmission to women (though in the US, 10% of new HIV infections are from women to men, so the data suggest these men may benefit)
    --after circumcision, avoid sex until the wound is healed
    --although some epidemiologic data suggest protection by circumcision for MSM who have insertive rectal sex, there are no convincing data to confirm this, and it is biologically unlikely that there is any protection for the anal-receptive partner
--risks and benefits of circumcision should be reviewed with patient​
    --in terms of neonatal circumcision, parents should know that circumcised males are less likely to get urinary tract infections (which are pretty uncommon, anyway), balanitis, HIV/STIs as above, penile cancer (also uncommon) and possibly prostate cancer
    --timing of neonatal circumcision: parents should know that neonatal circumcision is safer and heals more rapidly than when done in older boys and men, and costs less. though most of benefits are after the male is sexually active
    --complications: in newborns up to age 9, <0.5% and mostly bleeding/inflammation/need for corrective procedures. in those >10yo, 5% with complications as above and penile wounds. The American Academy of Pediatrics taskforce states that benefits outweigh risks for families who desire it.

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more