Literature DB >> 12615819

Poor response to ovulation induction is a stronger predictor of early menopause than elevated basal FSH: a life table analysis.

R Lawson1, T El-Toukhy, A Kassab, A Taylor, P Braude, J Parsons, P Seed.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During the course of assisted reproduction treatment, a number of women exhibit a "poor response" to ovulation induction, or demonstrate an elevated basal FSH level (> or =10 IU/l) at a young age. We sought to determine whether these women are at increased risk of early menopause and poor reproductive performance.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included 118 "poor responders" with normal basal FSH level (<10 IU/l), 164 women with raised basal FSH (> or =10 IU/l), and 265 controls, who underwent assisted reproduction treatment between 1987 and 1998. All women were < 40 years of age at the time of treatment and had normal menstrual cycles. Participants were sent a postal questionnaire in 2000-2001, seeking information on ovarian function and reproductive performance following cessation of treatment.
RESULTS: After adjusting for age and smoking habits, women with poor response and raised basal FSH levels were more likely to experience symptoms of the peri-menopause [hazard ratios 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52-3.78, and 2.76, 95% CI 1.78-4.29 respectively, P = 0.0001]. Poor responders were six times and 23 times more likely to experience the menopause within 10 years of treatment than those with raised basal FSH levels and controls respectively (hazard ratio 5.97 and 23.9, P = 0.015 and 0.002 respectively). Poor responders and those with raised basal FSH levels have half the chance of spontaneous conception after discontinuation of treatment compared with controls (P < 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: Both poor response to ovarian stimulation and raised basal FSH are markers of reduced ovarian reserve and predict an increased risk of early menopause.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12615819     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  18 in total

1.  Single and repeated GnRH agonist stimulation tests compared with basal markers of ovarian reserve in the prediction of outcome in IVF.

Authors:  D J Hendriks; F J Broekmans; L F J M M Bancsi; C W N Looman; F H de Jong; E R te Velde
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Genetic associations with diminished ovarian reserve: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Alexis D Greene; George Patounakis; James H Segars
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Do young women with unexplained infertility show manifestations of decreased ovarian reserve?

Authors:  Noa Abrahami; Ido Izhaki; Johnny S Younis
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 4.  Influence of follicular fluid and cumulus cells on oocyte quality: clinical implications.

Authors:  M G Da Broi; V S I Giorgi; F Wang; D L Keefe; D Albertini; P A Navarro
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Demographic characteristics and clinical profile of poor responders in IVF / ICSI: A comparative study.

Authors:  Nabaneeta Padhy; Shalu Gupta; Asmita Mahla; M Latha; Thangam Varma
Journal:  J Hum Reprod Sci       Date:  2010-05

6.  Serum and follicular fluid Anti-Mullerian hormone concentrations at the time of follicle puncture and reproductive outcome.

Authors:  Selma İnat Capkın; Sebnem Ozyer; Rana Karayalçın; Ozlem Moraloğlu; Sarp Ozcan; Mustafa Uğur
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2012-03-01

7.  Simple tools for assessment of ovarian reserve (OR): individual ovarian dimensions are reliable predictors of OR.

Authors:  Stacea Bowen; John Norian; Nanette Santoro; Lubna Pal
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2007-04-06       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Blood cell mitochondrial DNA content and premature ovarian aging.

Authors:  Marco Bonomi; Edgardo Somigliana; Chiara Cacciatore; Marta Busnelli; Raffaella Rossetti; Silvia Bonetti; Alessio Paffoni; Daniela Mari; Guido Ragni; Luca Persani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Contemporary genetic technologies and female reproduction.

Authors:  B C J M Fauser; K Diedrich; P Bouchard; F Domínguez; M Matzuk; S Franks; S Hamamah; C Simón; P Devroey; D Ezcurra; C M Howles
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 15.610

Review 10.  Biological versus chronological ovarian age: implications for assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Carlo Alviggi; Peter Humaidan; Colin M Howles; Donald Tredway; Stephen G Hillier
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 5.211

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.