| Literature DB >> 34129217 |
Siyu Zhou1,2,3, Danhua Lu1,2,3, Shu Wen1,2,3, Yongcheng Sheng4, Deying Kang4, Liangzhi Xu5,6,7.
Abstract
We performed this updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate anti-Müllerian hormone levels (AMH) in newborns of mothers with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) compared with healthy controls. A search of the literature was conducted in the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP for articles to assess AMH levels in offspring of PCOS and non-PCOS mothers irrespective of language. These databases were searched from their inception to December 7, 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scoring system. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted to calculate the overall estimates with random-effects models. A total of 6 studies with 846 participants were included. The pooled analysis found an increased AMH level in the umbilical cord blood in newborns of PCOS mothers (SMD =0.62, 95% CI [0.28, 0.95]). Subgroup analyses revealed an elevation of AMH concentrations in female neonates, neonates born to American and Asian PCOS mothers. In addition, higher AMH levels were also found in studies diagnosed by the National Institute of Health (NIH) criteria, maternal clinical/biochemical hyperandrogenism, or maternal body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2. Meta-regression analysis suggested that diagnostic criterion contributed mostly to the high heterogeneity. We demonstrated that AMH levels in neonates born to PCOS mothers were essentially higher, which indicates that AMH may act as an enigmatic role in the pathogenesis of PCOS which inhibits folliculogenesis in the fetal stage.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-Müllerian hormone; Metabolic health; Offspring; Polycystic ovary syndrome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34129217 PMCID: PMC8677639 DOI: 10.1007/s43032-021-00652-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Sci ISSN: 1933-7191 Impact factor: 3.060
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram
Characteristics of included studies
| First author | Year | Country | Study design | Diagnostic criterion | Mean age of mothers (years) | BMI of mothers | Gestational age at birth (days) | Measurement method for AMH | Sample size | Main outcomes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCOS | Control | ||||||||||
| Caanen | 2016 | Britain | Case-control study | The Rotterdam criteria | 33.40±3.96 | 24.93±3.92 | 277.39±2.35 | ELISA | 20 | 83 | T,ADION,DHEA,E1,E2,E3,AMH |
| Crisosto | 2012 | Chile | Case-control study | The NIH criteria | 28±13.64 | 30.49±9.29 | 270.22±9.96 | EIA | 23 | 35 | AMH,LH,FSH,17-OHP,A,T,E2 |
| Detti | 2019 | America | Cross-sectional study | The NIH criteria | 25.16±6.19 | 33.75±6.05 | 273.32±9.01 | ECLIA | 36 | 21 | AMH,T,FSH,E2 |
| Kollmann | 2019 | Austria | Prospective cohort study | The Rotterdam criteria | 30.35±5.01 | 29.06±5.22 | 280.80±7.50 | ELISA | 79 | 354 | T,fT,AMH,ADION |
| Sir-Petermann | 2006 | Chile | Case-control study | The NIH criteria | 26.46±5.89 | 27.47±5.36 | Not mentioned | EIA | 14 | 21 | GnRH,T,ADION,E2,17-OHP,SHBG,AMH,inhibin B |
| Tadaion Far | 2019 | Iran | Prospective cohort study | The NIH criteria | 27.71±5.17 | Not mentioned | 264.60±3.62 | ELISA | 120 | 60 | AMH |
BMI body mass index, AMH anti-Müllerian hormone, PCOS polycystic ovary syndrome, T testosterone, ADION androstenedione, DHEA dehydroepiandrosterone, E1 esterone, E2 estradiol, E3 estriol, LH luteinizing hormone, FSH follicle-stimulating hormone, 17-OHP 17-hydroxyprogesterone, A androstenedione, NIH National Institute of Health, fT free testosterone, GnRH gonadotropin-releasing hormone, SHBG sex hormone binding globulin, ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, EIA enzyme immunoassay, ECLIA electro-chemiluminescence assay
Methodological quality assessment of included studies
| First author | Year | selection | Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysisa | Exposure | Total score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adequate definition of the cases | Representativeness of the cases | Selection 2of controls | Definition of controls | Ascertainment of exposure | Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | Non-response rate | ||||
| Caanen | 2016 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 9 |
| Crisosto | 2012 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 9 |
| Detti | 2019 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | 7 | ||
| Kollmann | 2019 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | |
| Sir-Petermann | 2006 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 9 |
| Tadaion- Far | 2019 | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 7 | ||
aA maximum of 2 stars can be allotted in this category, one for age, BMI, and gestational age at labor and the other for other controlled factors
Fig. 2Forest plot
Meta-analyses of subgroups
| Subgroups | Number of study | Result | Heterogeneity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMD (95% CI) | p | I2 (%) | p value | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Female | 5 | 0.64 (0.14,1.14) | 0.01 | 74 | 0.004 |
| male | 4 | 0.60 (−0.11,1.31) | 0.10 | 84 | <0.0002 |
| Region | |||||
| Americas | 4 | 0.81 (0.47, 1.16) | <0.0001 | 0 | 0.61 |
| Europe | 4 | 0.08 (−0.14, 0.30) | 0.49 | 0 | 0.51 |
| Asia | 2 | 1.12 (0.79, 1.46) | <0.0001 | 0 | 0.94 |
| Diagnostic criteria | |||||
| Rotterdam | 4 | 0.08 (−0.14, 0.30) | 0.49 | 0 | 0.51 |
| NIH | 6 | 0.97 (0.74, 1.21) | <0.0001 | 0 | 0.63 |
| Maternal androgen | |||||
| High | 4 | 0.66 (0.205, 1.114) | 0.004 | 29 | 0.238 |
| Normal | 4 | 0.30 (−0.087, 0.695) | 0.127 | 66 | 0.031 |
| Method | |||||
| ELISA | 7 | 0.54 (0.11, 0.96) | 0.01 | 81 | <0.0001 |
| Other | 3 | 0.78 (0.39,1.17) | 0.0001 | 0 | 0.43 |
| Birth weight | |||||
| Macrosomia | 2 | 0.72 (0.29, 1.15) | 0.001 | 0 | 0.48 |
| NBW | 4 | 0.64 (0.20, 1.08) | 0.004 | 24 | 0.27 |
| Maternal BMI | |||||
| <30 | 5 | 0.22 (−0.09, 0.54) | 0.16 | 45 | 0.12 |
| >30 | 3 | 0.78 (0.39, 1.17) | 0.0001 | 0 | 0.43 |
SMD standardized mean difference, CI confidence interval, p p values of SMD, I the value of I-squared statistics, p value p values of heterogeneity chi-squared, NIH National Institutes of Health, ELISA enzyme-linked immune-sorbent assay, NBW normal birth weight, BMI body mass index
Univariate meta-regression analysis for potential variables between studies
| Studies | I2 res (%) | Adjusted R2 (%) | Coefficient | t | p | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birth weight | 6 | 16.02 | 0 | 0.083 | 0.319 | 0.26 | 0.808 | (−0.802, 0.968) |
| Infant gender | 9 | 80.47 | −17.68 | 0.049 | 0.394 | 0.12 | 0.905 | (−0.883, 0.980) |
| Maternal androgen | 8 | 54.10 | 17.17 | −0.358 | 0.333 | −1.08 | 0.323 | (−1.172, 0.455) |
| Diagnostic criteria | 10 | 0 | 100.00 | −0.910 | 0.166 | −5.50 | 0.001 | (−1.292, −0.528) |
| Maternal BMI | 8 | 36.69 | 60.02 | −0.602 | 0.292 | −2.06 | 0.085 | (−1.317, 0.113) |
| Method | 9 | 71.85 | −12.37 | −0.205 | 0.375 | −0.55 | 0.602 | (−1.090, 0.681) |
| Study region | 10 | 76.65 | −13.73 | 0.044 | 0.230 | 0.19 | 0.855 | (−0.488, 0.575) |
I res the value of I-squared statistics of residual error, R the value of R-squared statistics, SE standard error, t t value of t test, p p value of t test, CI confidence interval, BMI body mass index
Fig. 3Sensitivity analysis of the included studies
Fig. 4Funnel plot of the included studies
Fig. 5Egger’s publication bias plot