Different anti-Műllerian hormone (AMH) levels respond to distinct ovarian stimulation methods in assisted reproductive technology (ART): Clues to better ART outcomes.
age
anti‐Műllerian hormone
assisted reproductive technology
egg number
ovarian stimulation
Journal
Reproductive medicine and biology
ISSN: 1445-5781
Titre abrégé: Reprod Med Biol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101213278
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
17
01
2019
revised:
11
03
2019
accepted:
18
03
2019
entrez:
18
7
2019
pubmed:
18
7
2019
medline:
18
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We asked whether the relationship between anti-Műllerian hormone (AMH) value and the response to ovarian stimulation (OS) might be AMH value-related and differ for each regimen, aiming at getting clues as to how to choose OS protocols according to AMH levels. We further addressed how AMH value connects with ART outcome. A total of 1112 women undergoing egg retrieval in ART were included. We adopted four OS protocols, that is, clomiphene, clomiphene + low-dose gonadotropins (Gns), GnRH (Gn-releasing hormone) + Gns (short), and GnRH antagonist. Anti-Műllerian hormone showed a stronger correlation with egg number compared with age over a wide age range. When patients were stratified into four groups by AMH value (<1, 1-2, 2-3, and 3≦ ng/mL), the relationship between AMH and egg number differed among differential OS regimes. The number of eggs rose as AMH and total doses of Gn increased. When analyzed for each AMH group, egg number, but not AMH, was associated with pregnancy rate. Different AMH levels exhibit characteristic responses to distinct OS regimens. To improve ART outcomes, personalized OS should be selected so as to maximize egg number, which seems to be a more precise variable than AMH for predicting pregnancy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31312105
doi: 10.1002/rmb2.12270
pii: RMB212270
pmc: PMC6613008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
263-272Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: All the authors state explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.
Références
Hum Reprod. 2005 Apr;20(4):915-22
pubmed: 15665015
Hum Reprod. 2013 Oct;28(10):2728-34
pubmed: 23887075
Hum Reprod. 2017 Jan;32(1):112-118
pubmed: 27836979
Iran J Reprod Med. 2014 Nov;12(11):725-30
pubmed: 25709627
Ann Transl Med. 2015 Jun;3(10):137
pubmed: 26207230
Fertil Steril. 2007 Oct;88(4):1003-5
pubmed: 17434501
Reprod Med Biol. 2013 Jul;12(3):71-77
pubmed: 23874146
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1768-74
pubmed: 21558332
Fertil Steril. 2000 Jun;73(6):1155-8
pubmed: 10856474
J Immunol Methods. 2010 Oct 31;362(1-2):51-9
pubmed: 20801125
Fertil Steril. 2012 Nov;98(5):1254-9.e1-2
pubmed: 22921911
Fertil Steril. 2011 Nov;96(5):1246-51.e1
pubmed: 21917251
Mol Hum Reprod. 2012 Feb;18(2):79-87
pubmed: 21933846
Hum Reprod Update. 2010 Mar-Apr;16(2):113-30
pubmed: 19793843
Reprod Med Biol. 2019 Apr 04;18(3):263-272
pubmed: 31312105
Hum Reprod Update. 2011 Jul-Aug;17(4):435
pubmed: 21646384
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;22(3):193-201
pubmed: 20407372
Fertil Steril. 2008 Jun;89(6):1670-6
pubmed: 17658520
Fertil Steril. 2009 Nov;92(5):1794-8
pubmed: 19539911
Semin Reprod Med. 2004 Aug;22(3):253-67
pubmed: 15319828
Fertil Steril. 2014 Jun;101(6):1624-8
pubmed: 24680364
Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Dec;21(6):757-61
pubmed: 21044868
Fertil Res Pract. 2017 Oct 11;3:15
pubmed: 29046817