Evaluation of at-home serum anti-Müllerian hormone testing: a head-to-head comparison study.
AMH
Anti-Müllerian hormone
Blood collection
Home device
Home fertility testing
Journal
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
ISSN: 1477-7827
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biol Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2022
01 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
28
05
2022
accepted:
17
08
2022
entrez:
1
9
2022
pubmed:
2
9
2022
medline:
8
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For optimal fertility testing, serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels are used in combination with other testing to provide reliable ovarian reserve evaluations. The use of the ADx 100 card is widely commercially available for at-home reproductive hormone testing, but data demonstrating that its results are reproducible outside of a clinical setting are limited, as well as comparisons of its performance with other newer blood collection techniques. This study aimed to evaluate the concordance of serum AMH levels found via standard venipuncture and self-administered blood collection using the TAP II device (TAP) and ADx card in women of reproductive age. This was a prospective, head-to-head-to-head within-person crossover comparison trial that included 41 women of reproductive age (20-39 years). It was hypothesized that the TAP device would be superior to the ADx card both in terms of agreement with venipuncture reference standard and patient experience. Each subject had their blood drawn using the three modalities (TAP, ADx, and venipuncture). We evaluated the concordance of AMH assays from samples obtained via the TAP device and ADx card with the gold standard being venipuncture. Two-sided 95% CIs were generated for each method to compare relative performance across all three modes. Patient preference for the TAP device versus the ADx card was based on self-reported pain and Net Promoter Score (NPS). The TAP device was superior to the ADx card on all outcome measures. TAP R-squared with venipuncture was 0.99 (95% CI 0.99, > 0.99), significantly higher than the ADx card, which had an R-squared of 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.94) under most favorable treatment. TAP sensitivity and specificity were both 100% (no clinical disagreement with venipuncture), versus 100 and 88%, respectively, for the ADx card. Average pain reported by users of the TAP device was significantly lower than the ADx card (0.75 versus 2.73, p < 0.01) and the NPS was significantly higher than the ADx card (+ 72 versus - 48, p < 0.01). The TAP was non-inferior to venipuncture and superior to the ADx card with respect to correlation and false positives. Moreover, the TAP was superior to both alternatives on patient experience. NCT04784325 (Mar 5, 2021).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
For optimal fertility testing, serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels are used in combination with other testing to provide reliable ovarian reserve evaluations. The use of the ADx 100 card is widely commercially available for at-home reproductive hormone testing, but data demonstrating that its results are reproducible outside of a clinical setting are limited, as well as comparisons of its performance with other newer blood collection techniques. This study aimed to evaluate the concordance of serum AMH levels found via standard venipuncture and self-administered blood collection using the TAP II device (TAP) and ADx card in women of reproductive age.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a prospective, head-to-head-to-head within-person crossover comparison trial that included 41 women of reproductive age (20-39 years). It was hypothesized that the TAP device would be superior to the ADx card both in terms of agreement with venipuncture reference standard and patient experience. Each subject had their blood drawn using the three modalities (TAP, ADx, and venipuncture). We evaluated the concordance of AMH assays from samples obtained via the TAP device and ADx card with the gold standard being venipuncture. Two-sided 95% CIs were generated for each method to compare relative performance across all three modes. Patient preference for the TAP device versus the ADx card was based on self-reported pain and Net Promoter Score (NPS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The TAP device was superior to the ADx card on all outcome measures. TAP R-squared with venipuncture was 0.99 (95% CI 0.99, > 0.99), significantly higher than the ADx card, which had an R-squared of 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.94) under most favorable treatment. TAP sensitivity and specificity were both 100% (no clinical disagreement with venipuncture), versus 100 and 88%, respectively, for the ADx card. Average pain reported by users of the TAP device was significantly lower than the ADx card (0.75 versus 2.73, p < 0.01) and the NPS was significantly higher than the ADx card (+ 72 versus - 48, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The TAP was non-inferior to venipuncture and superior to the ADx card with respect to correlation and false positives. Moreover, the TAP was superior to both alternatives on patient experience.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
NCT04784325 (Mar 5, 2021).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36050723
doi: 10.1186/s12958-022-01004-2
pii: 10.1186/s12958-022-01004-2
pmc: PMC9434544
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Mullerian Hormone
80497-65-0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04784325']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
131Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Fertil Steril. 2011 Feb;95(2):832-4
pubmed: 20970126
J Biosoc Sci. 2017 Nov;49(S1):S20-S45
pubmed: 29160188
Hum Reprod. 2012 Aug;27(8):2503-8
pubmed: 22674205
Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Feb;26(2):130-2
pubmed: 23260035
Demography. 2007 Nov;44(4):899-925
pubmed: 18232218
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008 Feb 15;65(4):299-314
pubmed: 18238767
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 Mar;99(3):723-32
pubmed: 24423305
Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2019 Jun;46(2):50-59
pubmed: 31181872
Hum Reprod. 2015 Oct;30(10):2364-75
pubmed: 26311148
Climacteric. 2014 Oct;17(5):591-7
pubmed: 24716733
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Feb;133(2):343-348
pubmed: 30633131
Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Apr 1;139(4):561-570
pubmed: 35271530
Ther Drug Monit. 2021 Jun 1;43(3):310-321
pubmed: 33470777