Serum anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of metaphase II oocyte yield during controlled ovarian stimulation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59692/jogeca.v33i5.464Keywords:
anti-Müllerian hormone, ovarian stimulation, follicular count, follicular harvest, metaphase II oocytesAbstract
Background: The potential to predict metaphase II (MII) oocyte yield in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) has not been elucidated, despite being a mandatory predictor of fertilization potential. Hence this area is marred by the diversity of approaches to ovarian stimulation and the deficiency of standards.
Objective: To determine the role of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) as a predictor of MII oocyte yield during controlled ovarian stimulation at a private fertility clinic in Nairobi.
Methods: A retrospective descriptive cohort study design was employed in which MII outcomes during COS were compared among women aged 18-45 years with normal or low serum AMH levels. Data were collected sequentially until the desired sample size was achieved. Data were analyzed using the IBM statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 24.0 and STATA version 15. The level of significance was set at p<0.05.
Results: Approximately one-third of women above 35 years of age had normal serum AMH levels, while nearly three-quarters had low serum AMH levels (OR=0.1; 95 CI (0.1–0.4); p-value<0.001). By day % five, hyperresponse was more preponderant among those with normal AMH levels (39.0 vs. 3.8 ; % % OR=15.9; CI (2.0-126.0); p-value<0.001) and remained consistent. Almost three quarters of women with low AMH levels had a low MII yield compared to nearly one-quarter of those with normal AMH levels (OR=0.3; 95 CI (0.1-0.8); p- % value=0.014), even after controlling for age. This trend was consistent with that of the total oocyte count. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of serum AMH level as a predictor of MII oocyte yield were 86.0 , 54.3 , % % 72.96 , and 73.1 , respectively. % %
Conclusion: Normal serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels is associated with increased follicular count and total oocyte harvest during controlled ovarian stimulation and is a good predictor of MII oocyte yield.
References
Abbara A, Clarke SA, Dhillo WS. Novel Concepts for Inducing Final Oocyte Maturation in In Vitro Fertilization Treatment. Endocr Rev. 2018;39(5):593-628. doi:10.1210/er.2017-00236
Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care [published correction appears in Hum Reprod. 2007 Oct;22(10):2800].Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1506-1512. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem046
Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411- 426. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmv016
Teoh PJ, Maheshwari A. Low-cost in vitro fertilization: current insights. Int J Women's Health. 2014;6:817-827. Published 2014 Aug 21. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S51288
Allahbadia GN. IVF in Developing Economies and Low Resource Countries: An Overview. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2013;63(5):291-294. doi:10.1007/s13224-013-0477-0
de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(8):1851-1862. doi:10.1093/humrep/deq124
Silberstein T, MacLaughlin DT, Shai I et al. Müllerian inhibiting substance levels at the time of HCG administration in IVF cycles predict both ovarian reserve and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(1):159-163. doi:10.1093/humrep/dei270
Peñarrubia J, Fábregues F, Manau D, et al. Basal and stimulation day 5 anti-Müllerian hormone serum concentrations as predictors of ovarian response and pregnancy in assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist--gonadotropin
treatment. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(4):915-922. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh718
Smeenk JM, Sweep FC, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA, Thomas CM, Braat DD. Antimüllerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):223-226. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.06.019
Reichman DE, Goldschlag D, Rosenwaks Z.Value of antimüllerian hormone as a prognostic indicator of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(4):1012-8.e1. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.039
Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N. A prospective, comparative analysis of anti-Müllerian hormone, inhibin-B, and three-dimensional ultrasound determinants of ovarian reserve in the prediction of poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(3):855-864. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.042
de Vet A, Laven JS, de Jong FH, Themmen AP, Fauser BC. Antimüllerian hormone serum levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(2):357-362. doi:10.1016/s0015- 0282(01)02993-4
Choi MH, Yoo JH, Kim HO, et al. Serum anti- Müllerian hormone levels as a predictor of the ovarian response and IVF outcomes. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2011;38(3):153-158. doi:10.5653/cerm.2011.38.3.153
van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3065-3071. doi:10.1093/humrep/17.12.3065
Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):602-610. doi:10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61053-x
Wiweko B, Anggraheni U, Mansyur E, Yuningsih T, Harzief AK, Pratama G, Sumapraja K, Natadisastra M, Hestiantoro A, Serum AMH level predicts oocytes quality better than follicular fluid AMH level, Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.apjr.2016.07.011
Hill, Mark A. “Oocyte Development.” UNSW Embryology. https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/ index.php/Oocyte_Development (Accessed December 26, 2021)
Kelsey, J.L., Whittemore, A.S., Evans, A.S. and Thompson, W.D. (1996) Methods of sampling and estimation of sample size. In: Kelsey, J.L., Whittemore, A.S., Evans, A.S. and Thompson, W.D., Eds., Methods in Observational Epidemiology, Oxford University Press, New York.
Brodin T, Hadziosmanovic N, Berglund L, Olovsson M, Holte J. Antimüllerian hormone levels are strongly associated with live-birth rates after assisted reproduction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(3):1107-1114. doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3676
Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Müllerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(11):3178-3183. doi:10.1093/humrep/dei203
Lee JE, Lee JR, Jee BC, et al. Clinical application of anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation outcome. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2012;39(4):176-181. doi:10.5653/cerm.2012.39.4.176
Sighinolfi G, Grisendi V, La Marca A. How to personalize ovarian stimulation in clinical practice. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2017;18(3):148-153. doi:10.4274/jtgga.2017.0058
Broekmans FJ. Individualization of FSH Doses in Assisted Reproduction: Facts and Fiction. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:181. Published 2019 Apr 26. doi:10.3389/fendo.2019.00181
Pilsgaard F, Grynnerup AG, Løssl K, Bungum L, Pinborg A. The use of anti-Müllerian hormone for controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology, fertility assessment and counseling. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(9):1105-1113. doi:10.1111/aogs.13334
Sharma SD. Cryopreservation of somatic embryos – An overview. Indian Journal of Biotechnology 2005;4(1):47-55
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2021 The Authors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
