Safety, effectiveness and acceptability of the PrePex device for adult male circumcision in Kenya

Paul J Feldblum, Elijah Odoyo-June, Walter Obiero, Robert C Bailey, Stephanie Combes, Catherine Hart, Jaim Jou Lai, Shelly Fischer, Peter Cherutich, Paul J Feldblum, Elijah Odoyo-June, Walter Obiero, Robert C Bailey, Stephanie Combes, Catherine Hart, Jaim Jou Lai, Shelly Fischer, Peter Cherutich

Abstract

Objective: To assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of the PrePex device for adult medical male circumcision (MMC) in routine service delivery in Kenya.

Methods: We enrolled 427 men ages 18-49 at one fixed and two outreach clinics. Procedures were performed by trained clinical officers and nurses. The first 50 enrollees were scheduled for six follow-up visits, and remaining men were followed at Days 7 and 42. We recorded adverse events (AEs) and time to complete healing, and interviewed men about acceptability and pain.

Results: Placement and removal procedures each averaged between 3 and 4 minutes. Self-reported pain was minimal during placement but was fleetingly intense during removal. The rate of moderate/severe AEs was 5.9% overall (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8%-8.5%), all of which resolved without sequelae. AEs included 5 device displacements, 2 spontaneous foreskin detachments, and 9 cases of insufficient foreskin removal. Surgical completion of MMC was required for 9 men (2.1%). Among the closely monitored first 50 participants, the probability of complete healing by Day 42 was 0.44 (95% CI 0.30-0.58), and 0.90 by Day 56. A large majority of men was favorable about their MMC procedure and would recommend PrePex to friends and family.

Conclusions: The PrePex device was effective for MMC in Kenya, and well-accepted. The AE rate was higher than reported for surgical procedures there, or in previous PrePex studies. Healing time is longer than following surgical circumcision. Provider experience and clearer counseling on post-placement and post-removal care should lead to lower AE rates.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01711411.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Samuelson J, Baggaley R, Hirnschall G (2013) Innovative device methods for adult medical male circumcision for HIV prevention: lessons from research. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 64: 127–129.
    1. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, et al. (2005) Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2 (11) e298.
    1. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, Agot K, Maclean I, et al. (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 369: 643–656.
    1. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Makumbi F, Watya S, et al. (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 369: 657–666.
    1. Gray R, Kigozi G, Kong X, Ssempiija V, Makumbi F, et al. (2012) The effectiveness of male circumcision for HIV prevention and effects on risk behaviors in a post-trial follow up study in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS 26: 609–615.
    1. Mehta SD, Moses S, Agot K, Odoyo-June E, Li H, et al. (2013) The long-term efficacy of medical male circumcision against HIV acquisition. AIDS 27: 2899–2907.
    1. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Rech D, Lissouba P, Singh B, et al. (2013) Association of the ANRS-12126 Male Circumcision Project with HIV levels among men in a South African township: evaluation of effectiveness using cross-sectional surveys. PLoS Med 10 (9) e1001509.
    1. Bitega JP, Ngeruka ML, Hategekimana T, Asiimwe A, Binagwaho A (2011) Safety and efficacy of the Prepex device for rapid scale-up of male circumcision for HIV prevention in resource-limited settings. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 58: 127–134.
    1. Mutabazi V, Kaplan SA, Rwamasirabo E, Bitega JP, Ngeruka ML, et al. (2012) Male circumcision comparison between a non-surgical device and a surgical technique in resource-limited settings: a prospective, randomized, non-masked trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr DOI:
    1. Mutabazi V, Kaplan SA, Rwamasirabo E, Bitega JP, Ngeruka ML, et al. (2013) One-arm, open-label, prospective, cohort field study to assess the safety and efficacy of the PrePex device for scale-up of nonsurgical circumcision when performed by nurses in resource-limited settings for HIV prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 63: 315–322.
    1. World Health Organization (2012) Use of Devices for Adult Male Circumcision in Public Health HIV Prevention Programmes. WHO: Geneva.
    1. World Health Organization (2013) WHO Prequalification of Male Circumcision Devices Public Report. Product: PrePex; Number: PQMC 0001-001-00. WHO: Geneva.
    1. World Health Organization (2012) Framework for Clinical Evaluation of Devices for Adult Male Circumcision. WHO: Geneva.
    1. Rech D, Dickson K, Samkange C (2011) Adverse Event Action Guide for Male Circumcision. PSI and WHO: Washington, DC.
    1. Sokal DC, Li PS, Zulu R, Awori QD, Combes SL, et al. (2014) Randomized controlled trial of the Shang Ring versus conventional surgical techniques for adult male circumcision: safety and acceptability. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 65: 447–455.
    1. Williamson A, Hoggart B (2005) Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nursing 14: 798–804.
    1. Duffy K, Galukande M, Wooding N, Dea M, Coutinho A (2013) Reach and cost-effectiveness of the PrePex device for safe male circumcision in Uganda. PLoS One 8 (5) e63134.
    1. Herman-Roloff A, Bailey RC, Agot K (2012) Factors associated with the safety of voluntary medical male circumcision in Nyanza province, Kenya. Bull World Health Org 90: 773–781.
    1. Krieger JN, Bailey RC, Opeya JC, Ayieko BO, Opiyo FA, et al. (2007) Adult male circumcision outcomes: experience in a developing country setting. Urol Int 78: 235–240.
    1. Lissouba P, Taljaard D, Rech D, Doyle S, Shabangu D, et al. (2010) A model for the roll-out of comprehensive adult male circumcision services in African low-income settings of high HIV incidence: the ANRS 12126 Bophelo Pele Project. PLoS Med 7 (7) e1000309.
    1. Buwembo DR, Musoke R, Kigozi G, Ssempiija V, Serwadda D, et al. (2011) Evaluation of the safety and efficiency of the dorsal slit and sleeve methods of male circumcision provided by physicians and clinical officers in Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int 109: 104–108.
    1. Kigozi G, Musoke R, Watya S, Kighoma N, Ssebbowa P, et al. (2013) The acceptability and safety of the Shang Ring for adult male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 63: 617–621.
    1. Kiggundu V, Watya S, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, et al. (2009) The number of procedures required to achieve optimal competency with male circumcision: findings from a randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda. Br J Urol Intl 104: 529–532.
    1. World Health Organization (2013) Guideline on the Use of Devices for Adult Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention. WHO: Geneva.
    1. World Health Organization (2013) Meeting Report: WHO Technical Advisory Group on Innovations in Male Circumcision: Evaluation of Two Adult Devices. WHO: Geneva.
    1. Rogers JH, Odoyo-June E, Jaoko W, Bailey RC (2013) Time to complete wound healing in HIV-positive and HIV-negative men following medical male circumcision in Kisumu, Kenya: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One 8 (4) e61725.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit