Jiali Cai1, Lanlan Liu1, Juan Zheng1, Ling Zhang2, Xiaoming Jiang1, Ping Li1, Aiguo Sha1, Jianzhi Ren3. 1. Reproductive Medicine Centre, The Affiliated Chenggong Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, 361002, China. 2. Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Chenggong Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, 361002, China. 3. Reproductive Medicine Centre, The Affiliated Chenggong Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, 361002, China. rjz174@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether individual response of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) treatment is associated with difference in ovarian stimulation outcomes. METHODS: The retrospective study included 1058 non-polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) women undergoing long agonist protocol in a single in vitro fertilization unit from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Patients were grouped according to AMH changes from day 3 to the day of stimulation (group 1, change < 1 ng/ml, n = 714; group 2, decrease ≥ 1 ng/ml, n = 143; group 3, increase ≥ 1 ng/ml, n = 201). A generalized linear model including Poisson distribution and log link function was used to evaluate the association between AMH response and the number of oocytes retrieved. RESULTS: Group 2 was characterized by higher basal AMH level and increased AMH to AFC ratio in comparison with two other groups. However, the number of oocytes and ovarian sensitivity index in group 2 was significantly lower than group 3. Adjusted for age, BMI, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters, the population marginal means (95% confidence interval) of oocyte number in groups 1 through 3 were 9.51 (9.17, 9.86), 8.04 (7.54, 8.58), and 10.65 (10.15, 11.18), respectively. For patients from group 2 and group 3, basal AMH is no longer significantly associated with oocyte yield. CONCLUSIONS: AMH change in response to GnRH agonist varies among individuals; for those undergoing significant changes in AMH following GnRH agonist treatment, basal AMH may not be a reliable marker for ovarian response in long agonist protocol.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether individual response of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) treatment is associated with difference in ovarian stimulation outcomes. METHODS: The retrospective study included 1058 non-polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) women undergoing long agonist protocol in a single in vitro fertilization unit from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Patients were grouped according to AMH changes from day 3 to the day of stimulation (group 1, change < 1 ng/ml, n = 714; group 2, decrease ≥ 1 ng/ml, n = 143; group 3, increase ≥ 1 ng/ml, n = 201). A generalized linear model including Poisson distribution and log link function was used to evaluate the association between AMH response and the number of oocytes retrieved. RESULTS: Group 2 was characterized by higher basal AMH level and increased AMH to AFC ratio in comparison with two other groups. However, the number of oocytes and ovarian sensitivity index in group 2 was significantly lower than group 3. Adjusted for age, BMI, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters, the population marginal means (95% confidence interval) of oocyte number in groups 1 through 3 were 9.51 (9.17, 9.86), 8.04 (7.54, 8.58), and 10.65 (10.15, 11.18), respectively. For patients from group 2 and group 3, basal AMH is no longer significantly associated with oocyte yield. CONCLUSIONS:AMH change in response to GnRH agonist varies among individuals; for those undergoing significant changes in AMH following GnRH agonist treatment, basal AMH may not be a reliable marker for ovarian response in long agonist protocol.
Authors: K Jayaprakasan; B K Campbell; J F Hopkisson; J S Clewes; I R Johnson; N J Raine-Fenning Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2008-07-25 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: H Irene Su; Kevin Maas; Patrick M Sluss; R Jeffrey Chang; Janet E Hall; Hadine Joffe Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Irene Cimino; Filippo Casoni; Xinhuai Liu; Andrea Messina; Jyoti Parkash; Soazik P Jamin; Sophie Catteau-Jonard; Francis Collier; Marc Baroncini; Didier Dewailly; Pascal Pigny; Mel Prescott; Rebecca Campbell; Allan E Herbison; Vincent Prevot; Paolo Giacobini Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Jori A Leijdekkers; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Theodora C van Tilborg; Simone C Oudshoorn; Ron J T van Golde; Annemieke Hoek; Cornelis B Lambalk; Jan Peter de Bruin; Kathrin Fleischer; Monique H Mochtar; Walter K H Kuchenbecker; Joop S E Laven; Ben Willem J Mol; Helen L Torrance; Frank J M Broekmans Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 6.918