Home / Research / CoQ10 and egg quality in IVF

Evidence note

CoQ10 and egg quality in IVF

What did the CoQ10 trials measure, and who took part?

A 2024 review of six randomized trials found a higher clinical pregnancy rate, more eggs retrieved, and fewer cancelled cycles when women with diminished ovarian reserve took CoQ10 before IVF or ICSI. The odds ratio for clinical pregnancy was 1.84.

Clinical pregnancy, CoQ10 versus control
no difference (1.0)1.841.332.53

Odds ratio 1.84. The bar is the 95% confidence interval, 1.33 to 2.53. The dashed line at 1.0 would mean no difference. Six trials, 1,529 women with diminished ovarian reserve in IVF or ICSI. Lin et al., Annals of Medicine, 2024.

Who was studied

Lin and colleagues pooled six randomized trials in Annals of Medicine in 2024. The participants were 1,529 women with diminished ovarian reserve who were already going through IVF or ICSI. CoQ10 was a pretreatment, not a vitamin taken by an unselected couple at home.

Diminished ovarian reserve is a clinic diagnosis, so the result applies most directly to women in that group. CoQ10 is an antioxidant involved in cellular energy, which is why it appears on conception formulas for both egg and sperm quality.

What the pooled numbers were

Clinical pregnancy was higher with CoQ10: odds ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 1.33 to 2.53. The chart shows that interval sitting entirely above 1.0, which is why the authors called the association significant. An odds ratio of 1.84 describes the odds of clinical pregnancy in these trials. It does not predict a live birth for the next reader.

The review also reported about 1.3 more oocytes retrieved (mean difference 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.40) and a lower cycle-cancellation rate (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.83). The miscarriage result was less stable: odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.98, with a p value of 0.05. That interval is wide and nearly touches no effect.

Limits the authors noted

The authors noted that the sample was limited and that trial methods were not always well described, and they asked for larger, more rigorous trials.

This note uses the abstract. It does not re-read each of the six trials, and it does not confirm that they used the same CoQ10 dose, the same number of weeks, or the same definition of pregnancy.

Sources

The abstract was used. The six underlying trials were not re-extracted. Dose, duration, and live birth were not taken from this paper.

This is general information, not medical advice. All research.