Huilin Tang1, Yingying Yan1, Tiansheng Wang2, Ting Zhang1, Weilong Shi1, Rong Fan1, Yao Yao3, Suodi Zhai4. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, China. 2. Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, 100191, China. 3. Pharmacy department of Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400037, China. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, China. zhaisuodi@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) Asn680Ser polymorphism on the ovarian response to exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and clinical outcomes in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). METHODS: A database search was conducted to identify the eligible studies that investigated the effect of FSHR Asn680Ser polymorphism on ovarian response and clinical outcomes. A pooled analysis was performed with the odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and their respective 95 % confidence interval (CI) by the STATA software with random effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen cohort studies comprising a total of 4287 subjects were included. The number of retrieved oocytes was significantly fewer in subjects with the SS genotype at position 680, compared to subjects with the NN or NS genotype (WMD = -1.36, 95 % CI = -1.85 to -0.87). Lack of association was detected between the genotypes (SS genotype vs. NN or NS genotype) and clinical outcomes such as exogenous FSH dose (WMD = 98.96 IU, 95 % CI = -22.33 to 220.24), poor response (OR = 1.08, 95 % CI = 0.71-1.64), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR = 1.58, 95 % CI = 0.41-6.07), and clinical pregnancy rate (OR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 0.86-1.40). However, poor ovarian response and number of retrieved oocytes were significantly influenced by the Asn680Ser polymorphism in the Asian subjects. In addition, no publication bias was detected. CONCLUSION: FSHR Asn680Ser polymorphism might be a significant biomarker for predicting the number of retrieved oocytes and poor response, especially in Asian subjects. Other outcomes such as exogenous FSH dose, OHSS, and pregnancy rate were not influenced by FSHR Asn680Ser polymorphism.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) Asn680Ser polymorphism on the ovarian response to exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and clinical outcomes in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). METHODS: A database search was conducted to identify the eligible studies that investigated the effect of FSHRAsn680Ser polymorphism on ovarian response and clinical outcomes. A pooled analysis was performed with the odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and their respective 95 % confidence interval (CI) by the STATA software with random effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen cohort studies comprising a total of 4287 subjects were included. The number of retrieved oocytes was significantly fewer in subjects with the SS genotype at position 680, compared to subjects with the NN or NS genotype (WMD = -1.36, 95 % CI = -1.85 to -0.87). Lack of association was detected between the genotypes (SS genotype vs. NN or NS genotype) and clinical outcomes such as exogenous FSH dose (WMD = 98.96 IU, 95 % CI = -22.33 to 220.24), poor response (OR = 1.08, 95 % CI = 0.71-1.64), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR = 1.58, 95 % CI = 0.41-6.07), and clinical pregnancy rate (OR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 0.86-1.40). However, poor ovarian response and number of retrieved oocytes were significantly influenced by the Asn680Ser polymorphism in the Asian subjects. In addition, no publication bias was detected. CONCLUSION:FSHRAsn680Ser polymorphism might be a significant biomarker for predicting the number of retrieved oocytes and poor response, especially in Asian subjects. Other outcomes such as exogenous FSH dose, OHSS, and pregnancy rate were not influenced by FSHRAsn680Ser polymorphism.
Authors: Hermann M Behre; Robert R Greb; Andrea Mempel; Barbara Sonntag; Ludwig Kiesel; Petra Kaltwasser; Ewald Seliger; Friedrich Röpke; Jörg Gromoll; Eberhard Nieschlag; Manuela Simoni Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Salvatore Terrazzino; Sarah Cargnin; Marzia Del Re; Romano Danesi; Pier Luigi Canonico; Armando A Genazzani Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: J C Harper; K Aittomäki; P Borry; M C Cornel; G de Wert; W Dondorp; J Geraedts; L Gianaroli; K Ketterson; I Liebaers; K Lundin; H Mertes; M Morris; G Pennings; K Sermon; C Spits; S Soini; A P A van Montfoort; A Veiga; J R Vermeesch; S Viville; M Macek Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2017-12-04
Authors: Hannah A Nenonen; Ida A Lindgren; Alexandra S Prahl; Dorota Trzybulska; Isabella Kharraziha; Mathilda Hultén; Yvonne L Giwercman; Emir Henic Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Belén Monge-Ochoa; Luis Montoro; Elisa Gil-Arribas; Julio Montoya; Eduardo Ruiz-Pesini; Manuel J López-Pérez; Francisco de Castro; Carmen Díez-Sánchez Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: J C Harper; K Aittomäki; P Borry; M C Cornel; G de Wert; W Dondorp; J Geraedts; L Gianaroli; K Ketterson; I Liebaers; K Lundin; H Mertes; M Morris; G Pennings; K Sermon; C Spits; S Soini; A P A van Montfoort; A Veiga; J R Vermeesch; S Viville; M Macek Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 4.246