A Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Safety, Procedure Time, and Cost of the PrePex™ Device to Forceps Guided Surgical Circumcision in Zimbabwe

Mufuta Tshimanga, Tonderayi Mangwiro, Owen Mugurungi, Sinokuthemba Xaba, Munyaradzi Murwira, Danuta Kasprzyk, Daniel E Montaño, Daisy Nyamukapa, Basile Tambashe, Pesanai Chatikobo, Patricia Gundidza, Gerald Gwinji, Mufuta Tshimanga, Tonderayi Mangwiro, Owen Mugurungi, Sinokuthemba Xaba, Munyaradzi Murwira, Danuta Kasprzyk, Daniel E Montaño, Daisy Nyamukapa, Basile Tambashe, Pesanai Chatikobo, Patricia Gundidza, Gerald Gwinji

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS promote MC (male circumcision) as a key HIV prevention strategy where HIV prevalence and incidence are high and MC prevalence is low. In Zimbabwe, to achieve the 1.26 million circumcisions needed to be performed by 2015 to achieve optimal MC coverage, a new approach was needed. The primary objective of the current trial was to assess the performance (safety, procedure time, and cost) of the PrePex device compared to forceps-guided surgical circumcision.

Methods and findings: This Phase II, randomized, open-label trial in Zimbabwe involved healthy, non-circumcised adult male volunteers who were randomly assigned to the PrePex device (n = 160) or surgical arm (n = 80). Three doctors and 4 nurses, all certified on both circumcision methods, performed the procedures. The PrePex device procedure involves a plastic ring with a rubber O-ring that necrotizes the foreskin to facilitate easy and minimally invasive removal. Total procedure time was the primary endpoint. Adverse event (AE) data were also gathered for 90 days post-procedure. All 80 participants in the surgical arm and 158 participants in the PrePex arm achieved complete circumcision. The total procedure time for the PrePex device was approximately one-third of the total surgical procedure (4.8 minutes, Standard Deviation [SD]: 1.2 versus 14.6 minutes; SD: 4.2; p<0.00001). There were 2 AEs for 2 participants (rate of 1.3%, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.0025-4.53%), which were resolved with simple intervention. The AEs were device related, including 1 case of pain leading to device removal and 1 case of removal of the device.

Conclusions: The trial supports previous studies' conclusions that the PrePex procedure is safe, quick, easy to apply, and effective in terms of procedure time as an alternative to traditional surgical circumcision. The PrePex device has great potential for use in overburdened health systems and in resource-limited settings and is recommended for use in rapid scale-up of adult MC in Zimbabwe.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01956370.

Conflict of interest statement

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

Figures

Fig 1. Flow chart summarizing the screening…
Fig 1. Flow chart summarizing the screening and enrollment of the male participant candidates.

References

    1. Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS 2000; 14:2361–2370.
    1. Mills E, Cooper C, Anema A, Guyatt G. Male circumcision for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection: a meta-analysis of randomized trials involving 11,050 men. HIV Medicine 2008; 9:332–335. 10.1111/j.1468-1293.2008.00596.x
    1. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Makumbi F, Watya S, Nalugoda F, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369:657–666.
    1. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, Agot K, Maclean I, Krieger JN, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369:643–656.
    1. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2005; 2:e298
    1. Gray R, Kigozi G, Kong X, Ssempiija V, Makumbi F, Wattya S, et al. The effectiveness of male circumcision for HIV prevention and effects on risk behaviors in a posttrial follow-up study. AIDS 2012; 26:609–615. 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283504a3f
    1. WHO/UNAIDS. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and programme implications: policy and programme implications. Presented at: WHO/UNAID Technical Consultation; 6–8 March 2007; Montreux, Switzerland. [Accessed 24 March 2014].
    1. Njeuhmeli E, Forsythe S, Reed J, Opuni M, Bollinger L, Heard N, et al. Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision: Modeling the Impact and Cost of Expanding Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Eastern and Southern Africa. PLoS Med 2011; 8:e1001132 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001132
    1. Zimbabwe Central Statistical Office. Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Survey (ZDHS) 2005–06. Calverton: Macro International; 2007. [Accessed 25th April 2016]
    1. Ministry of Health and Child Welfare (MOHCW) of Zimbabwe. Strategic Plan: Ministry of Health and Child Welfare [MOHCW] (2010) Strategy for Safe Medical Male Circumcision Scale Up to Support. 2010.
    1. Ministry of Health and Child Care of Zimbabwe. Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of PrePexTM Device for Male Circumcision in Zimbabwe: Device Safety Trial Report. October, 2012.
    1. Sumithra J. Randomized phase II trials: Time for a new era in clinical trial design. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5:932–934 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181e2eadf
    1. Bitega JP, Ngeruka ML, Hategekimana T, Asiimwe A, Binagwaho A. 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 2011; 15:e127–e134.
    1. World Health Organization. Manual for male circumcision under local anesthesia, version 2.5C. January 2008. [Accessed 24 March 2014].
    1. Bollinger L, DeCormier Plosky W, Stover J. 2009. Male Circumcision: Decision Makers’ Program Planning Tool, Calculating the Costs and Impacts of a Male Circumcision Program. Washington, DC: Futures Group, Health Policy Initiative, Task Order 1;
    1. World Health Organization. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. [Accessed May 19, 2015].
    1. Galukande M, Duffy K, Bitega JP, Rackara S, Bbaale DS, Nakaggwa F, et al. Adverse events profile of PrePex a non-surgical device for adult male circumcision in a Ugandan urban setting. PLoS One 2014; 9:e86631 10.1371/journal.pone.0086631
    1. Mutabazi V, Kaplan SA, Rwamasirabo E, Bitega JP, Ngeruka ML, Savio D, et al. HIV prevention: male circumcision comparison between a nonsurgical device to a surgical technique in resource-limited settings: a prospective, randomized, nonmasked trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012; 61:41–55.
    1. Mutabazi V, Kaplan SA, Rwamasirabo E, Bitega JP, Ngeruka ML, Savio D, et al. 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 2013; 63:315–322. 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31828e6412
    1. Kigozi G, Musoke R, Watya S, Kighoma N, Nkale J, Nakafeero M, et al. The safety and acceptance of the PrePex device for non-surgical adult male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda. A non-randomized observational study. PLoS One 2014; 9:e100008 10.1371/journal.pone.0100008
    1. Feldblum PJ, Odoyo-June E, Obiero W, Bailey RC, Combes S, Hart C, et al. Safety, effectiveness and acceptability of the PrePex device for adult male circumcision inKenya. PLoS One 2014; 9:e95357 10.1371/journal.pone.0095357
    1. Obiero W, Young MR, Bailey RC. The PrePex device is unlikely to achieve cost-savings compared to the forceps-guided method in male circumcision programs in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 2013; 8:e53380 10.1371/journal.pone.0053380
    1. Njeuhmeli E, Kripke K, Hatzold K, Reed J, Edgil D, Jaramillo J, et al. Cost analysis of integrating the PrePex medical device into a voluntary medical male circumcision program in Zimbabwe. PLoS One 2014; 9:e82533 10.1371/journal.pone.0082533
    1. Duffy K, Galukande M, Wooding N, Dea M, Coutinho A. Reach and cost-effectiveness of the PrePex device for safe male circumcision in Uganda. PLoS One 2013; 8:e63134 10.1371/journal.pone.0063134
    1. Mutabazi V, Bitega JP, Ngeruka LM, Hategekimana T, Kaplan SA, Karema C, et al. Non-surgical adult male circumcision using the PrePex device: task-shifting from physicians to nurses. Afr J Reprod Health 2014; 18:61–70.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren