BACKGROUND: Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is increasingly used to quantify ovarian reserve, but it has not yet realized its full clinical potential in assisted reproduction technology. We investigated the possible benefits of using novel, stratified ovarian hyperstimulation protocols, tailored to individual AMH levels, compared with conventional stimulation. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from 769 women (first cycle of IVF, using fresh embryos), in a UK tertiary care unit: 346 women using conventional stimulation protocols; 423 women treated under new AMH-tailored protocols. RESULTS: Embryo transfer rates increased significantly (79-87%: P= 0.002) after the introduction of AMH-tailored stimulation protocols. Pregnancy rate per cycle started and live birth rate also increased significantly compared with conventionally treated women (17.9-27.7%, P= 0.002 and 15.9-23.9%, P = 0.007, respectively). Moreover, in the AMH group, the incidence of the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) fell significantly (6.9-2.3%, P = 0.002) and failed fertilization fell from 7.8 to 4.5%. The cost of fertility drug treatment fell by 29% per patient and the overall cost of clinical management of OHSS fell by 43% in the AMH group. GnRH antagonist protocols, introduced as part of AMH-tailored treatment, may have contributed to the observed improvements: however, within the AMH-tailored group, the live birth rate was not significantly different between agonist and antagonist-treated groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although large, prospective, multicentre studies are indicated, we have clearly demonstrated that individualized, AMH-guided, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols significantly improved positive clinical outcomes, reduced the incidence of complications and reduced the financial burden associated with assisted reproduction.
BACKGROUND: Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is increasingly used to quantify ovarian reserve, but it has not yet realized its full clinical potential in assisted reproduction technology. We investigated the possible benefits of using novel, stratified ovarian hyperstimulation protocols, tailored to individual AMH levels, compared with conventional stimulation. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from 769 women (first cycle of IVF, using fresh embryos), in a UK tertiary care unit: 346 women using conventional stimulation protocols; 423 women treated under new AMH-tailored protocols. RESULTS: Embryo transfer rates increased significantly (79-87%: P= 0.002) after the introduction of AMH-tailored stimulation protocols. Pregnancy rate per cycle started and live birth rate also increased significantly compared with conventionally treated women (17.9-27.7%, P= 0.002 and 15.9-23.9%, P = 0.007, respectively). Moreover, in the AMH group, the incidence of the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) fell significantly (6.9-2.3%, P = 0.002) and failed fertilization fell from 7.8 to 4.5%. The cost of fertility drug treatment fell by 29% per patient and the overall cost of clinical management of OHSS fell by 43% in the AMH group. GnRH antagonist protocols, introduced as part of AMH-tailored treatment, may have contributed to the observed improvements: however, within the AMH-tailored group, the live birth rate was not significantly different between agonist and antagonist-treated groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although large, prospective, multicentre studies are indicated, we have clearly demonstrated that individualized, AMH-guided, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols significantly improved positive clinical outcomes, reduced the incidence of complications and reduced the financial burden associated with assisted reproduction.
Authors: Maria E Bleil; Joyce T Bromberger; Melissa D Latham; Nancy E Adler; Lauri A Pasch; Steven E Gregorich; Mitchell P Rosen; Marcelle I Cedars Journal: Menopause Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Maria E Bleil; Steven E Gregorich; Daniel McConnell; Mitchell P Rosen; Marcelle I Cedars Journal: Menopause Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: D Fischer; C Reisenbüchler; S Rösner; J Haussmann; P Wimberger; M Goeckenjan Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Sunni L Mumford; Richard S Legro; Michael P Diamond; Christos Coutifaris; Anne Z Steiner; William D Schlaff; Ruben Alvero; Gregory M Christman; Peter R Casson; Hao Huang; Nanette Santoro; Esther Eisenberg; Heping Zhang; Marcelle I Cedars Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Maria E Bleil; Steven E Gregorich; Nancy E Adler; Barbara Sternfeld; Mitchell P Rosen; Marcelle I Cedars Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: E Hosseini; F Nikmard; B Aflatoonian; S Vesali; T Alenabi; A Aflatoonian; F Mehraein; R Aflatoonian Journal: Acta Endocrinol (Buchar) Date: 2017 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 0.877