Back

Effectiveness of Shenque moxibustion for unforeseen poor ovarian responders

Summaries 2 min 32

Font Size

Created On: 22/11/2024

Addressing infertility in patients with poor ovarian response to stimulation remains an unmet clinical need.

See All

Key take away

Herb-partitioned Shenque (RN8 acupoint) moxibustion on the navel improves oocyte and embryo outcomes in POSEIDON Group 2a patients, offering a promising approach to managing infertility with poor ovarian response.

Background

Addressing infertility in patients with poor ovarian response to stimulation remains an unmet clinical need. Hence, this study aimed to examine the effects of Shenque (RN8) moxibustion (traditional Chinese medicine) on reproductive outcomes in women with inadequate ovarian response based on the patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) Group 2a criteria.

Method

From January 2022 to December 2023, an academic fertility centre conducted a randomized controlled trial inviting women eligible for in vitro fertilization (IVF) to participate. The trial involved 100 volunteers (aged 44 or younger) equally divided into the control group (received IVF treatment) and the SQM group (received Shen Que moxibustion + IVF treatment).

Participants met POSEIDON Group 2a conditions, including an antral follicle count of 5 or more or, an anti-müllerian hormone of 1.2 ng/ml or more, and a past of unexpected poor ovarian response (<4 oocytes). The SQM group received 12 moxibustion sessions before oocyte retrieval, while the control group underwent only standard IVF treatment. The main outcome assessed was the quantity of oocytes retrieved.

Result

In the intervention group (SQM + IVF treatment), there were significant improvements in the number of retrieved oocytes (4.7 versus 5.8, p = 0.012), mature oocytes (3.0 versus 5.0, p = 0.008), and available embryos (2.0 versus 4.0, p = 0.014) in unexpected poor ovarian responders aged 35 years old. The cumulative live birth rate in the intervention group was 27.3% (9 out of 33) compared to 13.3% (4 out of 30) in the control group, although this change was not statistically meaningful. No considerable adverse effects were recorded.