Hepatitis B Virus and Kenya's Mass Male Circumcision Programs - Why the Secrecy?

[Cross posted from Don't Get Stuck With HIV website and blog.]

With all the posturing in the recently released Kenya Aids Indicator Survey (2012) about mass male circumcision, whether performed in completely unsterile conditions found in traditional settings or the (hopefully) more sterile settings of health facilities, nothing was mentioned about hepatitis B or C. But an article in the East African describes a piece of research carried out by the Kenya Medical Research Institute into hepatitis B (HBV) which finds that prevalence is increasing.

Amazingly, the article admits that the "modes of transmission [for HBV] are similar to HIV — sexual transmission, contaminated blood products and mother to child transmission"; it is "passed from person to person through bodily fluids such as blood, semen or vaginal fluids". Following a recent paper on HIV transmission through medical injections, it is very important to stress that HIV, like HBV, can be transmitted through non-sexual routes, such as unsafe healthcare, cosmetic and traditional practices.

The article is equally frank about the lack of research into HBV in Kenya: "scientists say the reason for the rise in HBV in Kenya is still unknown since no scientific study has been done to explain the phenomenon". 

In contrast, the HIV industry is a lot less frank about non-sexual HIV transmission, even though the country's Infection Control Policy admits that "Epidemiological data on HAIs [Healthcare Associated Infection] in Kenya is currently lacking, but the risk for HAIs is high". Slowly, some of these glaring gaps in research are being filled in, though the HIV industry displays a confidence that seems entirely unjustified.

Importantly, HBV among blood donors in Kenya is rising. Are those donating their blood being exposed to contaminated medical instruments through the blood transfusion services? The Kenyan Blood Transfusion Service is not able to supply enough blood to keep up with current demand, so they would need to make sure that people who donate are not being put at risk of infection with HBV or other blood borne viruses. While no one would want to scare people away from health facilities or from blood donation, keeping risks a secret would surely be a lot worse, wouldn't it?

The article suggests that the counties finding high rates of HBV are in the Northern parts of Kenya (which often have the lowest HIV rates). It is suggested that "The likely causes of HBV in the region are cultural practices like tattooing, circumcising without using sterilised implements and because the regions are dry and people may not be able to get proper nutrition that ensures strong immunity." As usual, there is a reluctance to ask if health facilities might also be somewhat responsible; does that mean these facilities will not be investigated, and that conditions, if unsafe, will not be improved?

There are various hepatitis related campaigns, but are WHO and other international health institutions going to ensure that all the people involved in the country's mass male circumcision programs, will be protected from infection with HBV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) as well? WHO makes vague claims about huge proportions of HBV and HCV being transmitted as a result of unsafe healthcare. But what exactly are the figures for 'priority' mass male circumcision countries? Again, it's likely that healthcare safety is more of a risk in these 'priority' countries, some of the poorest countries, with amongst the lowest levels of healthcare spending in the world, than it is in Western countries; why are we only given one, generalized figure, when the viruses must be much more prevalent in some countries than others?

Egypt, as (just one) example of a country with a serious hepatitis problem, has seen the figure for years of life lost (YLL) through HBV increase by 3,930% in the 20 years from 1990 to 2010. Liver cancer has increased by 361% in the same period. Cirrhosis has increased by 40% to become the number three cause of YLL, accounting for 1,127,000 YLLs, or 7.1% of all YLLs. Whether the almost 100% prevalence of circumcision in the country contributes to these figures is another question, but it shows what can happen in a country where there is a very high level of access to healthcare, yet where healthcare safety is not adequately addressed. One of the main reasons HCV prevalence is higher in Egypt than anywhere else in the world is because of schistosomiasis vaccination programs, which were carried out using inadequately sterilized glass syringes.

Reusable syringes and needles are no longer commonly used, but the WHO data shows that there is still a problem with unsafe injection practices. So the last thing high HIV prevalence African countries need is a vastly increased risk of bloodborne virus transmission through unsafe healthcare, whether this involves reuse of injecting equipment or other items that are used to pierce the skin during healthcare procedures. Mass male circumcision programs will likely increase the incidence of unsafe healthcare practices, including injections, and the WHO's claimed benefits in terms of averted infections may not be enough to outweigh the risks involved.

Even if levels of protection against sexually transmitted HIV outweigh the risks, and this is highly debatable (and debated, outside of the HIV industry), what about the risks of infection with HBV, HCV or other bloodborne pathogens, including HIV, during the circumcision procedure itself? Some recent research has questioned the safety of Kenya's health facilities. There are clearly more risks than those pushing the circumcision programs would like to admit; so will those who succumb to HIV industry pressure be advised of those risks? I suspect they will not.

[For more about non-sexually transmitted HIV through unsafe healthcare, cosmetic and traditional practices and how to protect yourself, visit the Don't Get Stuck With HIV site.]

WHO Supports Circumcision Despite What They Know About Injection Safety in Africa?

[Cross posted from the Don't Get Stuck With HIV site]

The World Health Organization's (WHO) mass male circumcision page states that the operation reduces risk of HIV transmission from females to males (etc), and that they and UNAIDS recommend circumcision as a strategy for HIV prevention, "particularly in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision". The claimed maximization of "public health benefit" raises many questions, about compatibility with their current victim blaming and individual responsibility strategy, and also about what can be done in areas with high rates of circumcision and high rates of HIV prevalence (or do they have a policy on foreskin reconstruction?).

But the question I'd like to concentrate on is what WHO means by 'settings'. If it refers to high HIV prevalence countries, then they must be aware that most HIV epidemics do not follow national or other geographical or political boundaries. Malawi, as mentioned in a previous blog, can be divided into three clusters, two clusters of low HIV prevalence and one of high prevalence. Only the high prevalence cluster has high rates of circumcision. Rwanda, similarly, has three clusters, two of low prevalence and one of high prevalence. Burundi has only one cluster, and that's the capital city, where most of the country's HIV positive people reside.

Indeed, high HIV prevalence tends to cluster in cities in most African countries, yet the vast majority of people in most high prevalence countries live in rural areas, where prevalence is often low, sometimes very low. So WHO aims to target up to 80% of males, when most of them can not be said in any useful sense to live in 'high HIV prevalence settings'. Although HIV epidemics are heterogenous, within as well as between countries, if high prevalence settings refer to anything at all they refer to areas where access to healthcare facilities is high and levels of safety in healthcare facilities are low (for example).

It gets worse because if you look at Burundi and Rwanda's Demographic and Health surveys (just two examples out of many) you will see that HIV prevalence is higher among Muslim men (mostly circumcised) than men of some of the other (often non-circumcising) denominations; prevalence is lower even among uncircumcised Muslims than circumcised Muslims. Other Demographic and Health Surveys show that HIV prevalence is far higher among Muslim women than among women of other denominations, not just higher than among Muslim men. So, not only does circumcision not always protect men from HIV, it may well have something to do with higher rates of transmission from men to women; this at least merits a bit of investigation, doesn't it?

What does this have to do with WHO's (somewhat vague) data on injection safety and healthcare safety, more broadly? Well, in a document on injection safety success stories, the WHO notes that an estimated 25 billion injections are administered annually and that an estimated 70% of them are unnecessary. The report states that "Unsafe practices and the overuse of injections can cause an estimated 32% of Hepatitis B virus, 40% of Hepatitis C virus and 5% of all new HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infections every single year." "At least 50% of injections were unsafe in 14 of 19 countries...for which data were available" according to another WHO report.

We don't know what levels of injection safety are like in WHO 'priority' countries for mass male circumcision programs (Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe). But we may assume, in the absence of data, that high HIV prevalence countries also tend to have higher rates of HIV transmission through unsafe injections. So what is the range of ates? 10%? 20%? The rate would be very low in many Western countries, so it must be fairly high in at least some high HIV prevalence countries to average at 5%. But if we are not told how high rates are, and for which countries, how can 'priority' countries even weigh the benefits against the risks? How can WHO, for that matter (yet they do claim benefits, up to "3.4 million new HIV infections" to be averted by 2025, not forgetting savings of US$16.5 billion)?

The 20 million figure that WHO recommends to be circumcised only refers to medical circumcisions (and it doesn't include children or infants, not yet anyhow), not to all those non-medical circumcisions carried out in unsterile conditions. The number of non-medical circumcisions would be many tens of millions, perhaps even over one hundred million over the course of these mass male circumcision programs (another 11 years to go). What if even just 5% of them were to be infected with HIV through unsafe practices? They won't be receiving injections, presumably, but one would like to think that WHO approved programs would have higher standards of safety than circumcisions performed in unsterile conditions by non-medically qualified people. Alas, it is difficult to estimate rates of HIV infections through unsafe medical and traditional practices because so little effort has ever been made to collect such data.

WHO and UNAIDS are obsessed with sexual behavior, but reluctant to assess non-sexually transmitted HIV, especially via unsafe injections and unsafe healthcare in general. Yet they are willing to promote mass male circumcision programs to reduce HIV transmission when their own figures suggest that the number of people who risk being infected with HIV through these programs is likely to be far higher than even the most outlandish estimates of infections 'averted'. Far from being a 'distraction' from effective HIV prevention, as some have called it, mass male circumcision programs are likely to transmit several times more infections than they could ever hope to avert.

Harm Reduction Needs to Start in Health Facilities

Now that PEPFAR (the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) have revised their Bush era decision to refuse funding to harm reduction programs, the Kenyan government may also consider changing their policy towards intravenous drug users (IDU). According to the head of Kenya's National Aids Control Program, addiction will be treated as a health issue and needle exchange, methadone and condoms will provided for IDUs.

Although the contribution of intravenous drug use to Kenya's epidemic is currently estimated to stand at about 4%, this kind of exposure is a highly efficient transmitter of HIV. Heterosexual sex, on the other hand, is not such an efficient transmitter. In some countries, sex workers are only likely to die of Aids if they are also IDUs.

Commercial sex work can be one of the few ways to make enough money to feed a drug addiction. The drugs have to be paid for, but injecting equipment can be, and often is, shared. So a source of clean injecting equipment for IDUs could play a big part in reducing HIV transmission by this route. However, the decision to fund HIV programs that target HIV transmission among IDUs may also allow better estimates of their full contribution towards Kenya's epidemic. It may also allow a better evaluation of the part that commercial sex work plays in the epidemic.

Very few HIV positive IDUs are currently on antiretroviral treatment. Such treatment could significantly reduce sexual transmission of HIV, though it may not reduce non-sexual transmission so much. But giving IDUs better access to diagnosis and treatment should improve conditions for them and reduce further HIV transmission.

Sadly, the Kenyan police force may need more than a change in the law. As long as they and others can make money out of drug users, it's unlikely they will all turn into social workers overnight. Nor are NASCOP in a position to decriminalize drug use on their own. So let's hope decriminalization becomes a reality. If the administrators of PEPFAR can change their minds for ideological reasons, I'm sure the relevant people in the Kenyan government could change theirs for pragmatic reasons.

But any kind of re-evaluation of non-sexual modes of HIV transmission would be welcome in Kenya, in fact, in all African countries. If donors, governments, health professionals and other big players in the HIV scene start to think about highly efficient modes of transmission, as opposed to the low efficiency of most types of sexual behavior, ordinary academics, epidemiologists and others may eventually be allowed to research and publish data that currently appears to be deprecated (to put it mildly).

Those with the money, however they managed to get hold of it, decide how that money should be spent. There's little point in waving a lot of drug addicts in front of donors if those donors are opposed to working with drug addiction. With such restrictions lifted, who knows, drug addiction, and therefore HIV transmission among IDUs (and those they associate with), may turn out to be more common than previously assumed.

Perhaps donors and governments will eventually revise their attitude towards commercial sex work, especially in view of its interconnections with drug use. This could even lead to questions about exactly how much sex has to do with HIV when the far more likely transmitter is non-sexual.

And, it's a long shot, but if the HIV industry is willing to accept that some HIV is transmitted non-sexually, even among people who are said to have a lot of 'unsafe' sex, they may even wonder if ordinary people engaging in ordinary amounts of 'safe' sex are being infected non-sexually too.

Drug users are not the only people who use injecting equipment. More disturbingly, they are not the only people reusing injecting equipment. Some people get a lot of injections, because they are sick, pregnant, an infant, a sex worker, whatever. And in populations with high HIV prevalence, all of those people are at heightened risk of being infected with HIV, non-sexually.

Maybe we’ll live to see the day when sex is viewed once again as an aspect of health and life rather than as a spreader of disease. But first, we have to accept that poor health care can be a significant source of disease. Harm reduction programs, now that health care professionals and governments are allowed to talk about them again, need to start in health facilities.

You're Promiscuous, But in the most Non-Pejorative Sense Possible

Since mentioning the Vienna Declaration (on drug policy) yesterday, I have heard that Kenya is one of the countries that 'may' be funded to supply intravenous drug users with sterile injection equipment. The Declaration objects to current policy in many countries, which criminalizes intravenous drug use and does not permit 'harm reduction' programmes, such as injection equipment exchange.

For many years it has been known that harm reduction programs can help reduce a social problem such as intravenous drug use. These programs can also play a part in reducing transmission of viruses such as HIV and hepatitis. Despite the evidence, a lot of governments of countries with high levels of intravenous drug use refuse to allow harm reduction programs, some as a result of HIV funders banning this particular use of funds. These funders argue that distributing sterile injection equipment will give rise to increased intravenous drug use, although this has been shown to be untrue.

One of the biggest sources of HIV prevention funding is the US's PEPFAR Program (President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief). This fund has been criticized since it began for having various clauses banning certain types of program, including supply of sterile equipment to intravenous drug users. Even when PEPFAR didn't specifically ban measures, things perceived to be deprecated were often avoided for fear of losing funding. Now, apparently, PEPFAR has relaxed some of its conditions. Let's hope perceptions also relax.

According to NASCOP (Kenya's National Aids Control Program) head, Dr Nicholas Muraguri, needle sharing is second only to blood transfusion when it comes to HIV transmission efficiency. Intravenous drug use with contaminated equipment is estimated to account for 3.8% of new HIV infections a year. Reducing this risk with an injection equipment exchange program could prevent hundreds of new infections every year. However, intravenous drug users are worried that police will still harass them, especially if they find them with injecting equipment.

But it is highly significant that Dr Muraguri acknowledges that injection equipment sharing is an important mode of HIV transmission. The WHO estimates that around 17% of HIV infections in Africa are due to unsafe injections. That's injections in healthcare settings, not injections relating to intravenous drug use. It's not just injections that can spread HIV, either. All sorts of medical procedures can carry a risk if adequate precautions are not taken to ensure blood safety and sterile conditions. I hope Dr Muraguri will get behind a program that takes measures to reduce medical transmission, given how efficient a transmitter of HIV it is.

Adding together injection safety for intravenous drug users and medical safety, this may account for around 30% of all HIV transmission. Almost all current HIV prevention programs in African countries assume that HIV is mainly transmitted sexually. However, changing sexual behavior will have no impact on non-sexual HIV transmission (sounds obvious, but try telling UNAIDS) and some programs, such as mass male circumcision, could increase non-sexual transmission.

It's time to move away from the rather atavistic attitude that people with HIV must have done something bad and should be punished accordingly. The effect of this attitude has been to punish people who are vulnerable, such as women, children or poor people, or who are already persecuted and discriminated against, such as intravenous drug users, men who have sex with men and sex workers. This sort of atavism has resulted in HIV continuing to spread, even in countries that have the wherewithal to avoid a serious epidemic. And it continues to be a barrier to reducing transmission in countries with serious epidemics.

But if you insist that most HIV in Africa is transmitted sexually, as the HIV industry does, you are thereby branding Africans as sexually promiscuous if they are found to be HIV positive. If you insist that Africans tend to be sexually promiscuous, it is pointless to then call for stigmatization of HIV positive people to be avoided, as the HIV industry does. Equating a HIV positive diagnosis with sexual promiscuity is what gives rise to HIV positive people being stigmatized.