Assessing the predictive limitations of anti-Müllerian hormone in ovarian response: insights from controlled ovarian stimulation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20243434Keywords:
AMH, Antagonist, Suboptimal response, IVF, PredictabilityAbstract
Background: Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is widely used to assess ovarian reserve and predict ovarian response during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of AMH in predicting ovarian response, embryo quality, and clinical outcomes in IVF/ICSI cycles using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol with a standardized gonadotropin dose of 150 IU for high and suboptimal responders. Additionally, the study examines the predictive value of alternative markers, such as age and antral follicle count (AFC), especially for suboptimal responders.
Methods: This retrospective, single-centre study analysed data from 158 women aged 21-35 years with AMH ≥1.5 ng/ml undergoing their first IVF cycle from July 2022 to July 2023. Patients were categorized into poor responders (<4 oocytes), suboptimal responders (4-9 oocytes), and high responders (≥10 oocytes) based on oocyte retrieval. AMH levels, AFC, and age were assessed as predictors of ovarian response, embryo quality, and implantation rates. Statistical analyses included linear and logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate predictive accuracy.
Results: Among 158 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, AMH showed a significant correlation with the number of oocytes retrieved (p=0.0036). High responders had better embryo quality and clinical pregnancy rates compared to suboptimal responders. AMH had a higher predictive value for high response (AUC=0.682) compared to suboptimal response (AUC=0.378), where age was a better predictor (AUC=0.522).
Conclusions: AMH is a reliable predictor of high ovarian response in GnRH antagonist protocols but is less effective for suboptimal responders. Comprehensive evaluations incorporating AMH, age, and AFC are crucial for individualized COS strategies to optimize outcomes in assisted reproductive technologies.
Metrics
References
Choi MH, Yoo JH, Kim HO, Cha SH, Park CW, Yang KM, et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels as a predictor of the ovarian response and IVF outcomes. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2011;38(3):153-8.
Hamdine O, Eijkemans MJC, Lentjes EWG, Torrance HL, Macklon NS, Fauser BCJM, et al. Ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonist treatment for IVF using anti-Müllerian hormone. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(1):170-8.
Arce JC, La Marca A, Milner Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R. Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good prognosis patient. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(6):1644-53.
Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Adeleke RO, Brown J, Lam WS, Broekmans FJ. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4.
Broer SL, Olleman MD, Van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt PMM, et al. Prediction of excessive response in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):420-9.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:e9-17.
Polyzos NP, Stoop D, Blockeel C, Adriaensen P, Platteau P, Anckaert E, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone for the assessment of ovarian response in GnRH-antagonist-treated oocyte donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(5):532-9.
Broekmans FJ. The sub-optimal response to controlled ovarian stimulation: manageable or inevitable? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2009-10.
Genro VK, Grynberg M, Scheffer JB, Roux I, Frydman R, Fanchin R. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels are negatively related to Follicular Output Rate (FORT) in normal-cycling women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(3):671-7.
Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):685-718.
Iwase A, Nakamura T, Osuka S, Takikawa S, Goto M, Kikkawa F. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve: What have we learned, and what should we know? Reprod Med Biol. 2016;15(3):127-36.
Li HWR, Nelson SM. Clinical application of AMH measurement in assisted reproduction. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:606744.
Gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z. Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives. 2nd edition. CRC Press. 2005.
Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2005-8.
Ashrafi M, Hemat M, Arabipoor A, Salman Yazdi R, Bahman-Abadi A, Cheraghi R. Predictive values of anti-müllerian hormone, antral follicle count and ovarian response prediction index (ORPI) for assisted reproductive technology outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(1):82-8.
Hochberg A, Dahan MH, Yarali H, Vuong LN, Esteves SC. Clinical factors associated with unexpected poor or suboptimal response in Poseidon criteria patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2024;49(1):103852.
Polyzos NP, Neves AR, Drakopoulos P, Spits C, Alvaro Mercadal B, Garcia S, et al. The effect of polymorphisms in FSHR and FSHB genes on ovarian response: a prospective multicenter multinational study in Europe and Asia. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(6):1711-21.
Roque M, Bianco B, Christofolini DM, Barchi Cordts E, Vilarino F, Carvalho W, et al. Pharmacogenetic algorithm for individualized controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Panminerva Med. 2019;61(1):76-81.
