Nicole Banks1, George Patounakis1, Kate Devine2, Alan H DeCherney1, Eric Widra3, Eric D Levens3, Brian W Whitcomb4, Micah J Hill5. 1. Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Shady Grove Fertility Science Center, Rockville, Maryland. 3. Shady Grove Fertility Science Center, Rockville, Maryland. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Amherst, Massachusetts. 5. Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: hillmicah@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study a broad range of FMR1 CGG repeat lengths and assisted reproduction technology (ART) outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Private ART practice. PATIENT(S): Fresh autologous ART stimulation cycles. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Oocyte yield, live birth. RESULT(S): We screened 14,088 fresh autologous ART cycles from 2012 to 2015, of which 4,690 cycles in 3,290 patients met the inclusion criteria. The FMR1 repeat length was statistically significantly but weakly associated with oocyte yield and other markers of ovarian response. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis suggested extremely limited predictive ability. Moreover, the FMR1 repeat length was not statistically significantly associated with outcomes in multivariable models, including other markers of ovarian reserve. The FMR1 repeat length was not associated with embryo quality or live birth. Only patient age had a strong ability to predict live birth. CONCLUSION(S): The FMR1 repeat length is associated with ART response, but only weakly. It provides no incremental predictive ability beyond the conventionally used predictors, including patient age, antimüllerian hormone concentration, antral follicle count, and follicle-stimulating hormone level. These data suggest a possible role of the FMR1 repeat length within the normal range in ovarian response but demonstrate no clinically relevant indication for testing FMR1 as a predictor of ART outcomes. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To study a broad range of FMR1 CGG repeat lengths and assisted reproduction technology (ART) outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Private ART practice. PATIENT(S): Fresh autologous ART stimulation cycles. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Oocyte yield, live birth. RESULT(S): We screened 14,088 fresh autologous ART cycles from 2012 to 2015, of which 4,690 cycles in 3,290 patients met the inclusion criteria. The FMR1 repeat length was statistically significantly but weakly associated with oocyte yield and other markers of ovarian response. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis suggested extremely limited predictive ability. Moreover, the FMR1 repeat length was not statistically significantly associated with outcomes in multivariable models, including other markers of ovarian reserve. The FMR1 repeat length was not associated with embryo quality or live birth. Only patient age had a strong ability to predict live birth. CONCLUSION(S): The FMR1 repeat length is associated with ART response, but only weakly. It provides no incremental predictive ability beyond the conventionally used predictors, including patient age, antimüllerian hormone concentration, antral follicle count, and follicle-stimulating hormone level. These data suggest a possible role of the FMR1 repeat length within the normal range in ovarian response but demonstrate no clinically relevant indication for testing FMR1 as a predictor of ART outcomes. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Lisa M Pastore; Mindy S Christianson; Bailey McGuinness; Kamaria Cayton Vaught; Jacqueline Y Maher; William G Kearns Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Jessica Klusek; Roger Newman-Norlund; Amanda J Fairchild; Sarah Newman-Norlund; Sara Sayers; Jill C Stewart; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Julius Fridriksson Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.163
Authors: Julia Rehnitz; Diego D Alcoba; Ilma S Brum; Jens E Dietrich; Berthe Youness; Katrin Hinderhofer; Birgitta Messmer; Alexander Freis; Thomas Strowitzki; Ariane Germeyer Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 5.211
Authors: Qi Wang; David H Barad; Sarah K Darmon; Vitaly A Kushnir; Yan-Guang Wu; Emanuela Lazzaroni-Tealdi; Lin Zhang; David F Albertini; Norbert Gleicher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 3.240