| Literature DB >> 31200701 |
Zheng-Yun Xie1, Zhi-Hang Peng2, Bing Yao3, Li Chen3, Yan-Yun Mu4, Jie Cheng4, Qian Li4, Xi Luo5, Peng-Yan Yang6, You-Bing Xia7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of acupuncture on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes remain controversial. And the variation in participant, interventions, outcomes studied, and trial design may relate to the efficacy of adjuvant acupuncture.Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; Clinical pregnancy rate; In vitro fertilization; Live birth rate; Systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31200701 PMCID: PMC6570865 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-019-2523-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Characteristics of the studies included in this review
| Study | Country | Main objective | Acupuncture location | No. randomised | Acupuncture sessions | Acupuncture type | De qi sensation | Controla | IVF outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andersen 2010 [ | Denmark | IVF outcome | On-site | 635 | Two sessions: (1) 30 m before ET; (2) immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | The Streitberger placebo needlesb placed on the same acupoints which the true acupuncture used ( | BPR、CPR、OPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| Arnoldi 2010 [ | Italy | IVF outcome | On-site | 204 | Three sessions: (1) d 5 of ovarian stimulation; (2) 30 m before ET; (3) immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment (n = 102) | CPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| Craig 2014 [ | USA | IVF outcome | Off-site | 113 | Two sessions: (1) within 1–2 h before ET; (2) within 1–2 h after ET ( | MA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment ( | BPR、CPR、LBR、MR |
| Dieterle 2006 [ | Germany | IVF outcome | On-site | 225 | Two sessions: (1) immediately after ET; (2) 3 days after ET ( | MA | Yes | Needles inserted in real acupoints which were designed not to influence fertility ( | BPR、CPR、OPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| Domar 2009 [ | USA | IVF outcome | On-site | 150 | Two sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2) immediately after ET ( | MA | Unclear | No adjuvant treatment ( | BPR、CPR |
| Feliciani 2011 [ | Italy | IVF outcome | On-site | 46 | Three sessions: (1) 5–7d before OA; (2) 2–3 d before OA; (3) within 1 h after ET (n = 23) | MA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment ( | CPR、OPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| Gillerman 2016 [ | UK | IVF outcome | On-site | 127 | Three sessions: (1) between days 6 and 8 of ovarian stimulation; (2) before egg retrieval; (3) before and after embryo transfer ( | MA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment ( | CPR |
| Ho 2009 [ | Taiwan | IVF outcome | On-site | 56 | Four sessions: twice a week for 2 weeks, from d2 to the day before oocyte retrieval ( | EA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment ( | CPR |
| Humaidan 2004 [ | Denmark | Pain-relieving effect | On-site | 200 | One session: a few minutes before OA and terminated directly after OA ( | EA | No | Alfentanil + PCB (n = 100) | BPR、CPR |
| Villahermosa 2012 [ | Brazil | anxiety-relieving efffects | On-site | 43 | Four sessions: once a week over a 4-week period, comprised the whole IVF process from induction of ovulation to the result of β-human chorionic gonadotrophin, the last treatment was given after embryo transfer ( | MA | Yes | Needles inserted in the sites which close to but not on (n = 21) | CPR |
| Villahermosa 2013 [ | Brazil | IVF outcome | On-site | 84 | Four sessions: (1)D1 (first day of ovulation induction); (2)D7 (seventh day of ovulation induction); (3)on the day before the day of ovarian puncture; (4)on the day after the day of embryo transfer ( | MA | Yes | Needles inserted in the arm and thigh, which are known not to correspond with classically described acupuncture points ( | BPR、CPR |
| Madaschi 2010 [ | Brazil | IVF outcome | On-site | 455g | Two sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2) immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment ( | CPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| Morin 2017 [ | USA | IVF outcome | On-site | 424 | Two sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2) after ET ( | MA | Unclear | No adjuvant treatment (n = 210)f | BPR、CPR、OPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| Moy 2011 [ | USA | IVF outcome | On-site | 161 | Two sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2) immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | Needles inserted in the sites which close to, but not on, the real acupoints ( | BPR、CPR |
| Omodei 2010 [ | Italy | IVF outcome | On-site | 168h | Two sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2) immediately after ET (n = 44)h | MA | Unclear | No adjuvant treatment ( | CPR、OPR、LBR、MR |
| Paulus 2002 [ | Germany | IVF outcome | On-site | 160 | Two sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2) immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment (n = 80) | CPR、OPR、LBR、MR |
| Paulus 2003 [ | Germany | IVF outcome | On-site | 200 | Two sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2) immediately after ET (n = 100) | MA | Yes | The Streitberger placebo needlesb placed on the same acupoints which the true acupuncture used ( | CPR、OPR、LBR、MR |
| Peyvandi 2016 [ | Iran | IVF and FET outcomes | On-site | 164 | Three sessions: (1)oocyte puncture day; (2)2 days after puncture; (3)one cycle before embryo transfer ( | EA | No | No adjuvant treatment (n = 82) | BPR、CPR、OPR |
| Rashidi 2013 [ | Iran | IVF outcome | On-site | 62 | Five sessions: (1)30 m on the 21st day of the previous cycle (start of downregulation); (2) the first day of stimulation; (3)2 days before OPU; (4) 30 m before ET; (5) immediately after ET (n = 31) | EA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment (n = 31) | BPR、CPR、OPR |
| Sator-K 2006 [ | Australia | Pain-relieving effect | On-site | 94 | One session:30 m before OA and lasted until 1 h after OA ( | EA/MA | No | PCA + an adhesive tape over the whole ear connected to the P-Stim™ without electrical stimulation (n = 30) | CPR |
| Smith 2006 [ | Australia | IVF outcome | On-site | 228 | Three sessions: (1) d9 of stimulating injections; (2)25 m before ET; (3) immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | The Streitberger placebo needlesb placed close to but not on the real acupuncture points ( | CPR、OPR |
| Smith 2018 [ | Australia and New Zealand | IVF outcome | On-site at the IVF centers or nearby | 848 | Three sessions: (1) between d6 and d8 of ovarian stimulation; (2) 1 h before ET; (3) immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | Park sham needlesc placed away from known acupuncture points (n = 424)k | |
| So 2009 [ | Hong Kong | IVF outcome | On-site | 370 | Two sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2) immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | The Streitberger placebo needlesb placed on the same acupoints which the true acupuncture used to give patients a pricking, penetrating sensation (n = 185) | BPR、CPR、OPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| So 2010 [ | Hong Kong | FET outcome | On-site | 226 | One session: immediately after ET ( | MA | Yes | The Streitberger placebo needlesb placed on the same acupoints which the true acupuncture used to give patients a pricking, penetrating sensation (n = 113) | BPR、CPR、OPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| Stener-Victorin 1999 [ | Sweden | Pain-relieving effect | On-site | 150 | One session: 30 m before OA and terminated directly after OA (n = 75) | EA | Yes | Alfentanil + PCB (n = 75) | CPR、LBR、MR、IR |
| Stener-Victorin 2003 [ | Sweden | IVF outcome | On-site | 286 | One session: 30 m before OA and terminated directly after OA ( | EA | Yes | Alfentanil + PCB ( | CPR、OPR、IR |
| Westergaard 2006 [ | Denmark | IVF outcome | On-site | 300 | Acupuncture group 1:Two sessions: (1)25 m before ET; (2)immediatelyafter ET (n = 100); Acupuncture group 2: Three sessions: (1) 25 m before ET; (2)immediately after ET; (3) 2 d after ET (n = 100)i | MA | Yes | No adjuvant treatment (n = 100) | BPR、CPR、OPR、LBR、MR、IR |
Note:Acupoints Acupuncture points, OA oocyte aspiration, ET embryo transfer, COH controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, MA manual acupuncture, EA electro acupuncture, d day, h hour, m minute, BPR biochemical pregnancy rate, CPR clinical pregnancy rate, OPR ongoing pregnancy rate, LBR live birth rate, MR miscarriage rate
aFor all sham-controlled trials, the sham acupuncture procedure was given on the same schedule as that used for the true acupuncture group
bThe tip of the Streitberger placebo needle is blunted, skin penetration did not occur
cPark sham needle has a retractable needle shaft and a blunt tip
dThe treatment assignment and the outcomes for 4/150 randomized participants were not recorded by the trial authors
eThere are two invention groups in the trial:needle acupuncture (AC) and laser acupuncture (LZ AC),and our meta-analysis only included the AC group
fThere are three control groups in the trial:sham laser acupuncture (LZ sham), relaxation (RX) and no treatment (NT),and our meta-analysis only included the NT group
The 39 participants (22 acupuncture; 17 control) who did not proceed to embryo transfer were excluded from the trial authors’ analysis (Manheimer, et al., 2013). Our meta-analysis was to re-include these participants and assumed the these participants failure to achieve the clinical pregnancy outcome
hThe number of each group were not available from the publishing information, but other review reported it (Manheimer, et al., 2013)
iThere are two intervention arms in the trial, and we combined them together for the meta-analysis
j8/26 patients in the control group excluded from the study (cancel to participate further after randomization)
k9/424 in acupuncture group and 15/424 in control group excluded from analysis (withdrawal consent for data to be used)
Fig. 1Risk of bias graph (a) and risk of bias summary (b) based on review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item
Fig. 2Effect of acupuncture on the clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing IVF. Villahermosa 2013 had one acupuncture group and two control groups (sham acupuncture group and no intervention control group), two control groups were grouped separately for relevant subgroup analysis, and when calculated the total pooled risk ratio (RR), we took them together
Fig. 3Effect of acupuncture on the live birth rates in women undergoing IVF
The information of variables for meta-regression subgroup analyses
| Study | Age (years) | Duration of infertility (years) | Repeated IVF cycles(%) | No. of embryos transferred | Primary infertility(%) | No. of acupuncture sessions | Acupuncture type | Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andersen 2010 [ | 31.0 | 2.5 | 42.4% | 1.39 | 71% | 1 | MA | SC |
| Arnoldi 2010 [ | 100% | 2.10 | 2 | MA | NC | |||
| Craig 2014 [ | 33.1 | 2.10 | 1 | MA | NC | |||
| Dieterle 2006 [ | 34.9 | 5.4 | 83.6%a | 2.60 | 80% | 2 | MA | SC |
| Domar 2009 [ | 36.1 | 2.51 | 1 | MA | NC | |||
| Feliciani 2011 [ | 34.9 | 1.84 | 3 | MA | NC | |||
| Gillerman 2016 [ | 3 | MA | NC | |||||
| Ho 2009 [ | 35.0 | 3.56 | 4 | EA | NC | |||
| Humaidan 2004 [ | 31.0 | 1 | EA | NC | ||||
| Madaschi 2010 [ | 35.0 | 2.15 | 1 | MA | NC | |||
| Morin 2017 [ | 34.5 | 2.57 | 1 | MA | NC | |||
| Moy 2011 [ | 33.2 | 2.15 | 63% | 1 | MA | SC | ||
| Omodei 2010 [ | 35.7 | 2.05 | 1 | MA | NC | |||
| Paulus 2002 [ | 32.5 | 2.15 | 1 | MA | NC | |||
| Paulus 2003 [ | 32.6 | 1 | MA | SC | ||||
| Peyvandi 2016 [ | 3 | EA | NC | |||||
| Rashidi 2013 [ | 31.6 | 9.3 | 2.55 | 76% | 4 | EA | NC | |
| Sator-K 2006 [ | 33.8 | 77.7% | 1 | EA/MA | SC | |||
| Smith 2006 [ | 36.0 | 2.9 | 52.2% | 76% | 2 | MA | SC | |
| Smith 2018 [ | 35.4 | 70% | 1.32 | 74% | 2 | MA | SC | |
| So 2009 [ | 36.0 | 4.0 | 30.5% | 1.89 | 61% | 1 | MA | SC |
| So 2010 [ | 36.0 | 5.0 | 1.93 | 38% | 1 | MA | SC | |
| Stener-Victorin 1999 [ | 33.4 | 60.4% | 2.03 | 1 | EA | NC | ||
| Stener-Victorin 2003 [ | 32.9 | 47.8% | 1.92 | 1 | EA | NC | ||
| Villahermosa 2012 [ | 34.2 | 4.0 | 4 | MA | SC | |||
| Villahermosa 2013 [ | 36.2 | 4.5 | 100% | 2.13 | 82% | 4 | MA | SC/OCb |
| Westergaard 2006 [ | 37.0 | 3.7 | 73.6% | 2.07 | 42% | 1/2c | MA | NC |
Note: MA manual acupuncture, EA electro acupuncture, SC sham control, NC no intervention control
aDieterle 2006 reported clinical pregnancy rates for first, second and more than two IVF cycles, and then we grouped these three arms separately for meta-regression subgroup analyses
bThis trial had two control groups, sham acupuncture group and no intervention control group,and these groups were grouped separately for relevant subgroup analysis
cWestergarrd 2006 had two acupuncture treatment arms, one arm received two sessions and the other arm received three, and these arms were grouped separately for this meta-regression
The results of meta-regression subgroup analyses for primary outcomes
| Characteristic | Subgroup analyses | Meta-regression | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of subjects | No. of studies | Random-effects RR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | Coefficient | I2resid | Adj R2 | |||
| I2 |
| ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Age | |||||||||
| < 33.3 years | 1800 | 8 | 0.96 (0.82, 1.13) | 42.1% | 0.097 | 0.045 | 0.270 | 60.38% | 0.71% |
| ≥ 33.3 years | 3821 | 16 | 1.27 (1.08, 1.50) | 62% | < 0.005 | ||||
| Duration of infertility | |||||||||
| < 5. 6 years | 2103 | 8 | 1.27 (0.95, 1.71) | 77.6% | < 0.001 | 0.072 | 0.523 | 76.70% | −5.06% |
| ≥ 5. 6 years | 62 | 1 | 1.60 (0.59, 4.35) | / | / | ||||
| Percentage of primary infertility | |||||||||
| < 50% | 518 | 2 | 1.11 (0.59, 2.10) | 82.7% | 0.016 | 1.252 | 0.203 | 71.19% | 2.77% |
| ≥ 50% | 2588 | 8 | 1.18 (0.92, 1.52) | 73.7% | < 0.001 | ||||
| Percentage of repeated IVF cycle | |||||||||
| < 50% | 1279 | 3 | 0.86 (0.75, 1.00) | 0% | 0.63 | 1.59 | < 0.001 | 0% | 100% |
| ≥ 50% | 2099 | 8 | 1.60 (1.28, 2.00) | 39% | 0.12 | ||||
| No. of embryos transferred | |||||||||
| < 1.9 | 1875 | 4 | 0.96 (0.79, 1.16) | 46% | 0.14 | 0.219 | 0.305 | 65.92% | 0.79% |
| ≥ 1.9 | 3186 | 16 | 1.24 (1.03, 1.49) | 67.3% | < 0.001 | ||||
| Type of acupunture invention | |||||||||
| Electroacupuncture | 958 | 7 | 1.30 (0.96, 1.75) | 56.5% | 0.032 | 0.066 | 0.713 | 65.29% | −6.38% |
| Manual acupuncture | 5187 | 21 | 1.21 (1.04, 1.40) | 67.8% | < 0.001 | ||||
| No. of acupuncture treatments | |||||||||
| one session | 3962 | 16 | 1.06 (0.92, 1.21) | 61.1% | 0.001 | 0.248 | 0.002 | 48.40% | 51.90% |
| ≥ two sessions | 2055 | 12 | 1.60 (1.32, 1.92) | 24.9% | 0.199 | ||||
| Type of control group | |||||||||
| Sham or placebo acupuncture control | 3060 | 11 | 1.14 (0.94, 1.39) | 66.6% | 0.001 | −0.109 | 0.466 | 62.34% | −0.25% |
| No acupuncture invention control | 3084 | 17 | 1.28 (1.08 1.52) | 60.3% | 0.001 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Age | |||||||||
| < 33.3 years | 895 | 3 | 0.96 (0.59, 1.58) | 77% | 0.013 | 0.026 | 0.693 | 68.74% | −13.18% |
| ≥ 33.3 years | 3179 | 10 | 1.18 (0.96, 1.45) | 63% | 0.003 | ||||
| Duration of infertility | |||||||||
| < 5. 6 years | 1748 | 5 | 1.03 (0.76, 1.40) | 71.6% | 0.007 | 0.157 | 0.712 | 75.35% | −20.26% |
| ≥ 5. 6 years | / | / | / | / | / | ||||
| Percentage of primary infertility | |||||||||
| < 50% | 518 | 2 | 1.07 (0.62, 1.83) | 69.7% | 0.069 | 0.497 | 0.658 | 71.40% | −43.04% |
| ≥ 50% | 2054 | 4 | 1.00 (0.74, 1.36) | 71.7% | 0.014 | ||||
| Percentage of repeated IVF cycle | |||||||||
| < 50% | 1005 | 2 | 0.81 (0.67, 1.01) | 0% | 0.673 | 1.256 | 0.046 | 32.78% | 87.90% |
| ≥ 50% | 1688 | 5 | 1.42 (1.05, 1.92) | 45% | 0.12 | ||||
| No. of embryos transferred | |||||||||
| < 1.9 | 1865 | 4 | 0.87 (0.74, 1.02) | 0% | 0.604 | 0.386 | 0.163 | 62.55% | 7.83% |
| ≥ 1.9 | 2397 | 10 | 1. 27 (1.00, 1.62) | 66.0% | 0.002 | ||||
| Type of acupunture invention | |||||||||
| Electroacupuncture | 149 | 1 | 1.90 (1.05, 3.42) | / | / | 0.534 | 0.226 | 61.92% | 9.04% |
| Manual acupuncture | 4323 | 14 | 1.11 (0.93, 1.31) | 62.0% | 0.001 | ||||
| No. of acupuncture treatments | |||||||||
| one session | 3080 | 11 | 1.13 (0.92, 1.39) | 70.4% | < 0.001 | 0.099 | 0.654 | 64.01% | −7.71% |
| ≥ two sessions | 1485 | 5 | 1.22 (0.93, 1.60) | 23.2% | 0.266 | ||||
| Type of control group | |||||||||
| Sham or placebo acupuncture control | 2480 | 6 | 1.01 (0.80, 1.27) | 63.8% | 0.017 | −0.213 | 0.274 | 60.40% | 7.21% |
| No acupuncture invention control | 1992 | 9 | 1.26 (0.99, 1.60) | 58.3% | 0.014 | ||||
Fig. 4Meta-regression between the effects of acupuncture on clinical pregnancy rates (a)/ live birth rates (b) and repeated IVF cycle proportion as a single continuous covariate
Fig. 5The funnel plot for the 27 eligible studies (Begg’s and Egger’s test, p = 0.006). The studies are separated into two groups by No. of acupuncture treatments either one or more than one
Fig. 6The result of cumulative meta-analysis based on sample size