Literature DB >> 25355590

Ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonist treatment for IVF using anti-Müllerian hormone.

O Hamdine1, M J C Eijkemans2, E W G Lentjes3, H L Torrance4, N S Macklon5, B C J M Fauser4, F J Broekmans4.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the clinical value of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) for the prediction of high or low ovarian response in controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF using GnRH antagonist treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: AMH as a single test has substantial accuracy for ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonist treatment for IVF, with a higher accuracy for predicting a high response than for low response. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The role of AMH and other patient characteristics in ovarian response prediction has been studied extensively in long GnRH agonist protocols; however, little information is available regarding the clinical value in GnRH antagonists. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is an observational (retrospective) substudy as part of an ongoing cohort study. A total of 487 patients scheduled for IVF/ICSI between 2006 and 2011 were included in the study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Patients with a regular cycle who underwent their first IVF/ICSI cycle with GnRH antagonist treatment while receiving a starting dose of 150 or 225 IU recombinant FSH were included in the study. Patients were divided into three subgroups according to the following ovarian response categories: high (>15 oocytes or cycle cancellation), normal (4-15 oocytes) and low (<4 oocytes or cycle cancellation). Serum samples collected prior to IVF treatment were used to determine serum AMH levels. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: According to the predefined ovarian response categories, 58 patients were classified as high, 326 as normal and 101 as low responders, and the ongoing pregnancy rates did not differ among groups (19.0, 22.1 and 16.8%, respectively, P = 0.9). For the prediction of high response, AMH had an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.87. Both female age and BMI had lower accuracy (AUC 0.66 and 0.58, respectively). For low response prediction, again AMH had a better accuracy (AUC 0.79) than female age and BMI (AUC 0.59 and 0.56, respectively). In a multivariate model, including the factors age, AMH, BMI, smoking, type and duration of subfertility, only BMI added some predictive value to AMH for both high and low response prediction. Clinical test characteristics demonstrated that using a specificity of ∼90%, the detection rate of AMH for high and low response, corresponding with a test cut-off of 4.5 and 0.8 µg/l, was ∼60 and ∼45%, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The impact of the antral follicle count (AFC) on ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonists was not assessed; however, previously studies demonstrated that for GnRH antagonists, AMH has a better accuracy than AFC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The current study demonstrates that AMH is an adequate predictor for both high and low response in GnRH antagonist cycles, showing a similar accuracy to GnRH agonists, as reported previously. The optimization and individualization of GnRH antagonist protocols may be improved by using an AMH-tailored approach. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by the Academic Institutional Resources of the Department of Reproductive Medicine of the UMC Utrecht. O.H., M.J.C.E, E.W.G.L and H.L.T. have nothing to declare. N.S.M. has received fees and/or grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Informa, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and/or grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order); Childhealth, CVON, Ferring, Ova-Science, PregLem, Roche and Watson laboratories. F.J.B. has received fees and/or grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order); Merck Serono and MSD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Protocol ID 13-109.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GnRH antagonist; IVF; anti-Müllerian hormone; ovarian response

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25355590     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu266

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


  18 in total

1.  Prediction of different ovarian responses using anti-Müllerian hormone following a long agonist treatment protocol for IVF.

Authors:  Z Heidar; M Bakhtiyari; M Mirzamoradi; S Zadehmodarres; F S Sarfjoo; M A Mansournia
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2015-05-17       Impact factor: 4.256

Review 2.  Ovarian stimulation protocols for poor ovarian responders: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Man Di; Xiaohong Wang; Jing Wu; Hongya Yang
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-06-11       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  An in silico model using prognostic genetic factors for ovarian response in controlled ovarian stimulation: A systematic review.

Authors:  B S Eisele; G C Villalba Silva; C Bessow; R Donato; V K Genro; J S Cunha-Filho
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  A Case-Control Study of Follicular Fluid Cytokine Profiles in Women with Diminished Ovarian Reserve.

Authors:  Ruo-Pan Huang; Anna K Knight; Sina Abhari; Jingqiao Lu; Heather S Hipp; Brianne Petritis; Sabrina A Gerkowicz; Quinton S Katler; Haw-Han Yen; Yingqing Mao; Hao Tang; Weirong Shang; Laurie J McKenzie; Alicia K Smith
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  Avoiding OHSS: Controlled Ovarian Low-Dose Stimulation in Women with PCOS.

Authors:  D Fischer; C Reisenbüchler; S Rösner; J Haussmann; P Wimberger; M Goeckenjan
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.915

6.  Antral follicle responsiveness to FSH, assessed by the follicular output rate (FORT), is altered in Hodgkin's lymphoma when compared with breast cancer candidates for fertility preservation.

Authors:  Charlotte Sonigo; Marjorie Comtet; Solene Duros; Christophe Sifer; Nathalie Sermondade; Michaël Grynberg
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Comparison of clinical outcomes between the depot gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocol and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in normal ovarian responders.

Authors:  Min Xia; Jie Zheng
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  Anti Mullerian Hormone: Ovarian response indicator in young patients receiving Long GnRH Agonist Protocol for Ovarian Stimulation.

Authors:  Zehra Jamil; Syeda Sadia Fatima; Rehana Rehman; Faiza Alam; Sara Arif
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.088

9.  A comparative study on the results of agonist and antagonist protocols based on serum AMH levels in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Authors:  Fatemeh Nikmard; Behrouz Aflatoonian; Elham Hosseini; Abbas Aflatoonian; Mehrdad Bakhtiyari; Reza Aflatoonian
Journal:  Int J Reprod Biomed (Yazd)       Date:  2016-12

10.  Effects of immediate versus delayed frozen embryo transfer in high responder patients undergoing freeze-all cycles.

Authors:  Na Zuo; Yingzhuo Gao; Ningning Zhang; Da Li; Xiuxia Wang
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.