Ling Cui1, Yonghong Lin1, Jinli Lin1, Fang Wang2. 1. Department of Reproduction and Infertility, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China. 2. Department of Reproduction and Infertility, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China. postwf@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) used to establish patient profiles and predict ovarian response to stimulation, its role in assisted reproductive technology techniques is crucial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the evidence from published RCTs about the efficacy and safety of AMH-based ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation. METHOD: Search strategy: electronic databases were searched using the following MeSH terms (Anti-Müllerian hormone OR AMH) AND (IVF OR ICSI) and (tailored OR based). SELECTION CRITERIA: only RCTs were included. Four studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: the extracted data were entered into RevMan software, the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Primary outcomes: ongoing pregnancy: test for overall effect was in favor of AMH-based group, but there was no statistically significant difference [RR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.84-1.08), P = 0.44]. Severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) test or overall effect was in favor of AMH-based group, but there was still no statistically significant difference [RR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.43-1.06), P = 0.09]. Secondary outcomes were dose of rFSH, the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilized oocytes, embryos (day 3), blastocysts (day 5), and duration of stimulation. Only the dose of rFSH and duration of stimulation were in the favor of AMH-based group, with statistically significant difference. The other four secondary outcomes were in the favor of the conventional group but with no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION: AMH-based stimulation has the same results of pregnancy rate and risk of OHSS and can reduce the dose of rFSH and duration of stimulation.
BACKGROUND: Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) used to establish patient profiles and predict ovarian response to stimulation, its role in assisted reproductive technology techniques is crucial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the evidence from published RCTs about the efficacy and safety of AMH-based ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation. METHOD: Search strategy: electronic databases were searched using the following MeSH terms (Anti-Müllerian hormone OR AMH) AND (IVF OR ICSI) and (tailored OR based). SELECTION CRITERIA: only RCTs were included. Four studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: the extracted data were entered into RevMan software, the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Primary outcomes: ongoing pregnancy: test for overall effect was in favor of AMH-based group, but there was no statistically significant difference [RR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.84-1.08), P = 0.44]. Severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) test or overall effect was in favor of AMH-based group, but there was still no statistically significant difference [RR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.43-1.06), P = 0.09]. Secondary outcomes were dose of rFSH, the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilized oocytes, embryos (day 3), blastocysts (day 5), and duration of stimulation. Only the dose of rFSH and duration of stimulation were in the favor of AMH-based group, with statistically significant difference. The other four secondary outcomes were in the favor of the conventional group but with no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION:AMH-based stimulation has the same results of pregnancy rate and risk of OHSS and can reduce the dose of rFSH and duration of stimulation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anti-Müllerian hormone; Dose of rFSH; Meta-analysis; Ongoing pregnancy rate; Rate of OHSS
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Anders Nyboe Andersen; Scott M Nelson; Bart C J M Fauser; Juan Antonio García-Velasco; Bjarke M Klein; Joan-Carles Arce Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Simone L Broer; Jeroen van Disseldorp; Kimiko A Broeze; Madeleine Dolleman; Brent C Opmeer; Patrick Bossuyt; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Ben-Willem J Mol; Frank J M Broekmans Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 15.610