| Literature DB >> 24527047 |
Yuehui Zhang1, Yiman Fu2, Fengjuan Han3, Hongying Kuang3, Min Hu3, Xiaoke Wu3.
Abstract
About 10-15% of couples have difficulty conceiving at some point in their reproductive lives and thus have to seek specialist fertility care. One of the most commonly used treatment options is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and its related expansions. Despite many recent technological advances, the average IVF live birth rate per single initiated cycle is still only 30%. Consequently, there is a need to find new therapies to promote the efficiency of the procedure. Many patients have turned to complementary and alternative medical (CAM) treatments as an adjuvant therapy to improve their chances of success when they undergo IVF treatment. At present, several CAM methods have been used in infertile couples with IVF, which has achieved obvious effects. However, biologically plausible mechanisms of the action of CAM for IVF have not been systematically reviewed. This review briefly summarizes the current progress of the impact of CAM on the outcomes of IVF and introduces the mechanisms.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24527047 PMCID: PMC3914344 DOI: 10.1155/2014/419425
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Summary of randomized studies of the effect of acupuncture on IVF outcomes.
| Study ID | Design | Sample size | Interventions | Outcomes | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | RCT | 273 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 39% [37 of 95] | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| |||||
| 19 | RCT | 160 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 42.5% [34 of 80] | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| |||||
| 21 | Single-blind, RCT | 228 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 31% [33 of 107] | Single-blind trial |
|
| |||||
| 22 | RCT | 225 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 33.6% [39 of 116] | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| |||||
| 37 | Single-blind, RCT | 150 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 50% [39 of 78] | Single-blind trial |
|
| |||||
| 59 | RCT | 44 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 30% [9 of 30] | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| |||||
| 35 | Double-blind, RCT | 370 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 55.1 [102 of 185]#
| |
|
| |||||
| 36 | Double-blind, RCT | 226 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | There were no significant differences in outcomes of PR, OPR, LBR, and IR in the placebo acupuncture group than in the real acupuncture group | Small sample size |
|
| |||||
| 34 | Double-blinded, RCT | 635 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | There were no significant differences in outcomes of OPR and LBR and IR between the placebo acupuncture group and the real acupuncture group | |
|
| |||||
| 39 | RCT | 416 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | There was no significantly increased PR in the acupuncture group than in the control group | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| |||||
| 44 | Double-blinded, RCT | 160 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | CPR had no significant difference between the true acupuncture group and the sham acupuncture group | Small sample size |
|
| |||||
| 32 | RCT | 66 | Treatment arm: acupuncture intervention | The fertilization rate, cleavage rate, and the rate of high-quality embryos were all significantly higher in the acupuncture group than in the control group | Not mentioned blindness |
Note: RCT: randomized clinical trial; PR: pregnancy rate; OPR: ongoing pregnancy rate; LBR: live birth rate; IR: implantation rate; FR: fertilization rate; CR: cleavage rate. P < 0.05 versus treatment arm; # P < 0.05 versus control arm.
Summary of the effect of randomized studies of CHM on IVF outcomes.
| Study ID | Design | Sample size | Interventions | Outcomes | Composition | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | RCT | 400 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 59.41% [101 of 170] | (1) Tiaojing Zhuyun pill: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 91 | RCT | 244 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 47.37% [36 of 76] | (1) Zhongyu I: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 93 | RCT | 220 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 52.73% [58 of 110] | (1) Yishen Angong I: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 94 | RCT | 207 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 54.46% [55 of 101] | (1) Cuhuangti Granule: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 95 | RCT | 200 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 45% [45 of 100] | Antai I: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 97 | RCT | 160 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 60.0% [48 of 80] | Bubao Decoction: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 98 | Single-blind RCT | 122 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 39.34% [24 of 61] | Erzhi Tiangui Granule: | Single-blind trial |
|
| ||||||
| 99 | RCT | 100 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 16.0% [8 of 50] | Zishen Huoxue decoction: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 100 | RCT | 98 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 40.74% [21 of 50] | Bushen Huatan decoction: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 101 | RCT | 82 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 63.4% [26 of 41] | (1) Jinghou Zengzhi Granule: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 102 | RCT | 82 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 39.34% [17 of 42] | Quyu Jiedu Granule: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 103 | RCT | 80 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 62% [31 of 50] | Shoutai pill: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 104 | RCT | 80 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 57.5% [23 of 40] | Shoutai pill: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 105 | RCT | 80 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 47.6% [20 of 42] | Erzhi Tiangui Granule: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 106 | RCT | 72 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 83.33% [30 of 36] | Radix codonopsis (Dangshen), Astragalus (Huangqi), Herba taxilli (Shangjisheng), White paeony root (Baishao | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 107 | Single-blind RCT | 70 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 65.7% [23 of 35] | Dane Fukang Jiangao: | Single-blind trial |
|
| ||||||
| 88 | RCT | 64 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 36.11% [13 of 36] | Erzhi Tiangui Granule: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 109 | RCT | 63 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 43.5% [14 of 31] | (1) CHM decoction I: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 110 | RCT | 61 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 56.7% [17 of 31] | Erzhi Daotan decoction: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 111 | RCT | 60 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 73.33% [22 of 30] | Bushen Tiaojing decoction: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 112 | RCT | 58 | Treatment arm: CHM | Treatment arm: PR, 73.33% [22 of 30] | Bushen Tiaojing decoction: | Not mentioned blindness |
Note: CHM: Chinese herbal medicine; PR: pregnancy rate; P < 0.05 versus treatment arm.
Summary of the effect of the clinical studies of artificial cycle sequential therapies with CHM on IVF outcomes.
| Study ID | Design | Sample size | Interventions | Outcomes | Composition | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 121 | Single-blind RCT | 60 | Treatment arm: CHM + COH | Treatment arm: PR, 46.7% [14 of 30] | Period: | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
|
| ||||||
| 122 | RCT | 160 | Treatment arm: CHM + COH | Treatment arm: PR, 63.5% [40 of 63] | Follicular phase: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 123 | RCT | 100 | Treatment arm: CHM + COH | Treatment arm: PR, 50% [25 of 50] | The basic prescription: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 125 | RCT | 58 | Treatment arm: CHM + COH | Treatment arm: PR, 26.7% [8 of 30] | Follicular phase: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 126 | RCT | 42 | Treatment arm: CHM + COH | Treatment arm: PR, 38.1% [8 of 21] | Follicular phase: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 127 | RCT | 53 | Treatment arm: CHM + COH | Treatment arm: PR, 48.0% [12 of 25] | The basic prescription: | Not mentioned blindness |
|
| ||||||
| 128 | Observational studies | 480 | Treatment arm: CHM | PR, 10.8% [52 of 480] | Period: | No control group |
Note: CHM: Chinese herbal medicine; COH: control ovarian hyperstimulation; PR: pregnancy rate; P < 0.05 versus treatment arm.
Summary of the effect of the clinical studies of psychological intervention on IVF outcomes.
| Study | Design | Sample size | Interventions | Outcomes | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 148 | RCT | 420 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 44.83% [39 of 125] | |
|
| |||||
| 158 | Nonrandomized clinical trial | 110 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 38.18% [21 of 55] | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
|
| |||||
| 149 | RCT | 210 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention through the treatment | Treatment arm: PR, 53.33% [56 of 105] | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
|
| |||||
| 150 | RCT | 286 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 40.79% [62 of 152] | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
|
| |||||
| 159 | RCT | 100 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 35.7% [15 of 42] | Small sample size |
|
| |||||
| 151 | RCT | 268 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 41.67% [80 of 192] | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
|
| |||||
| 152 | RCT | 207 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 44.5% [49 of 108] | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
|
| |||||
| 153 | RCT | 385 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 64.56% [122 of 189] | |
|
| |||||
| 154 | RCT | 218 | Treatment arm: IKAP intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 54.0% [65 of 120] | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
|
| |||||
| 155 | RCT | 447 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 43.5% [121 of 278] | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
|
| |||||
| 156 | RCT | 268 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 46.32% [89 of 129] | |
|
| |||||
| 157 | RCT | 1060 | Treatment arm: psychological intervention | Treatment arm: PR, 51.71% [320 of 590] | Not mentioned drop-out rate |
Note: PR: pregnancy rate; IKAP: information-knowledge-attitude-practice; P < 0.05 versus treatment arm.