Availability, effectiveness and safety of ART in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION What is the evidence pertaining to availability, effectiveness and safety of ART in sub-Saharan Africa? SUMMARY ANSWER According to overall limited and heterogeneous evidence, availability and utilization of ART are very low, clinical pregnancy rates largely compare to other regions but are accompanied by high multiple pregnancy rates, and in the near absence of data on deliveries and live births the true degree of effectiveness and safety remains to be established. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In most world regions, availability, utilization and outcomes of ART are monitored and reported by national and regional ART registries. In sub-Saharan Africa there is only one national and no regional registry to date, raising the question what other evidence exists documenting the status of ART in this region. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A systematic review was conducted searching Pubmed, Scopus, Africawide, Web Of Science and CINAHL databases from January 2000 to June 2017. A total of 29 studies were included in the review. The extracted data were not suitable for meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. All peer-reviewed manuscripts irrespective of language or study design that presented original data pertaining to availability, effectiveness and safety of ART in sub-Saharan Africa were eligible for inclusion. Selection criteria were specified prior to the search. Two authors independently reviewed studies for possible inclusion and critically appraised selected manuscripts. Data were analysed descriptively, being unsuitable for statistical analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The search yielded 810 references of which 29 were included based on the predefined selection and eligibility criteria. Extracted data came from 23 single centre observational studies, two global ART reports, two reviews, one national data registry and one community-based study. ART services were available in 10 countries and delivered by 80 centres in six of these. Data pertaining to number of procedures existed from three countries totalling 4619 fresh non-donor aspirations in 2010. The most prominent barrier to access was cost. Clinical pregnancy rates ranged between 21.2% and 43.9% per embryo transfer but information on deliveries and live births were lacking, seriously limiting evaluation of ART effectiveness. When documented, the rate of multiple pregnancy was high with information on outcomes similarly lacking. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The findings in this review are based on limited data from a limited number of countries, and are derived from heterogeneous studies, both in terms of study design and quality, many of which include small sample sizes. Although representing best available e...

IVF and other ART in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic landscape analysis

“…Almost 4 years after ART, couples had not recovered financially from the treatment ( Dyer et al , 2017 ). Costs are considered to be a factor in the low utilization rates of ART services ( Omokanye et al , 2017 ; Botha et al , 2018 ; Dyer et al , 2019 ; Ombelet and Onofre, 2019 ). The accessibility of clinics is another barrier to ART treatment for patients, with only a few clinics reported in Kenya ( Murage et al , 2011 ).…”

“…decision-making about the use of technologies, discrimination against children born, psychological problems and loss of self-esteem, side effects and costs) related to ART. These issues are largely dependent on the local context (urban and rural) and religion (Catholic, Muslim, Anglican and traditional religions) ( Fabamwo and Akinola, 2013 ; Iliyasu et al , 2013 ; Bello et al , 2014 ; Menuba et al , 2014 ; Fadare and Adeniyi, 2015 ; Omokanye et al , 2017 ; Botha et al , 2018 ; Dyer et al , 2019 ; Ombelet and Onofre, 2019 ). We found no studies exploring the acceptability of ART treatment in other African countries.…”

Estimating the government public economic benefits attributed to investing in assisted reproductive technology: a South African case study

“…Evidence from studies shows that where ART outcomes in South Africa are documented, multiple pregnancies are frequent (Botha et al, 2018). However, multiple pregnancies tend to be costly to health systems.…”

Economic costs of infertility care for patients in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

“…16 Despite the existence of ART for nearly three decades, it is either unavailable or inaccessible to most people in resource-poor countries. [17][18][19] There is a growing need for infertility treatment such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), but the demand outstrips availability, and the costs are prohibitive. 17 20 Moreover, infertility in many resource-limited settings such as sub-Sahara Africa is often overlooked due to many competing health needs, as well as the relatively high fertility rates and large family sizes which may mask infertility in populations.…”