Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 18;21(1):64.
doi: 10.1186/s12958-023-01119-0.

TEAS, DHEA, CoQ10, and GH for poor ovarian response undergoing IVF-ET: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Fengya Zhu  1   2 , Shao Yin  3 , Bin Yang  1 , Siyun Li  2 , Xia Feng  2 , Tianyu Wang  1 , Deya Che  4
Affiliations

TEAS, DHEA, CoQ10, and GH for poor ovarian response undergoing IVF-ET: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Fengya Zhu et al. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. .

Abstract

Background: Assisted reproductive technology (ART) has brought good news to infertile patients, but how to improve the pregnancy outcome of poor ovarian response (POR) patients is still a serious challenge and the scientific evidence of some adjuvant therapies remains controversial.

Aim: Based on previous evidence, the purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of DHEA, CoQ10, GH and TEAS on pregnancy outcomes in POR patients undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transplantation (IVF-ET). In addition, we aimed to determine the current optimal adjuvant treatment strategies for POR.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library and four databases in China (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed) were systematically searched up to July 30, 2022, with no restrictions on language. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant treatment strategies (DHEA, CoQ10, GH and TEAS) before IVF-ET to improve pregnancy outcomes in POR patients, while the control group received a controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) regimen only. This study was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to provide a pooled measure of cumulative ranking for each outcome.

Results: Sixteen RCTs (2323 women) with POR defined using the Bologna criteria were included in the network meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, CoQ10 (OR 2.22, 95% CI: 1.05 to 4.71) and DHEA (OR 1.92, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.16) had obvious advantages in improving the clinical pregnancy rate. CoQ10 was the best in improving the live birth rate (OR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.07 to 5.38). DHEA increased the embryo implantation rate (OR 2.80, 95%CI: 1.41 to 5.57) and the high-quality embryo rate (OR 2.01, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.78) and number of oocytes retrieved (WMD 1.63, 95% CI: 0.34 to 2.92) showed a greater advantage, with GH in second place. Several adjuvant treatment strategies had no significant effect on reducing the cycle canceling rate compared with the control group. TEAS was the least effective of the four adjuvant treatments in most pooled results, but the overall effect appeared to be better than that of the control group.

Conclusion: Compared with COS regimen, the adjuvant use of CoQ10, DHEA and GH before IVF may have a better clinical effect on the pregnancy outcome of POR patients. TEAS needs careful consideration in improving the clinical pregnancy rate. Future large-scale RCTs with direct comparisons are needed to validate or update this conclusion.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022304723.

Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology; IVF-ET; NMA; Poor ovarian response; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The screening flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The network plot (A Clinical pregnancy rates; B Embryo implantation rate; C High-quality embryo rate; D Cycle canceling rate; E Live birth rate; F Number of oocytes retrieved)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
SUCRA analysis: MeanRank figure (Clinical pregnancy rate)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Simonstein F, Mashiach-Eizenberg M, Revel A, Younis JS. Assisted reproduction policies in Israel: a retrospective analysis of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1301–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.740. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kupka MS, D’Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):233–48. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev319. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from european registries by ESHRE: the european IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Hum Reprod. 2018;33(9):1586–601. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey242. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ben-Rafael Z, Bider D, Dan U, Zolti M, Levran D, Mashiach S. Combined gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist/human menopausal gonadotropin therapy (GnRH-a/hMG) in normal, high, and poor responders to hMG. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1991;8(1):33–6. doi: 10.1007/bf01131588. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jenkins JM, Davies DW, Devonport H, Anthony FW, Gadd SC, Watson RH, et al. Comparison of ‘poor’ responders with ‘good’ responders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(7):918–21. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137459. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types