Comparison of Automated Anti-Müllerian Hormone Assays and Antral Follicle Count in Predicting Ovarian Response During Ovarian Stimulation

E. C. Tan, P. Chincholkar, S. Yu, S. Lim, R. Renuka, T. Yong, C. Yeo, H. Rajesh
{"title":"Comparison of Automated Anti-Müllerian Hormone Assays and Antral Follicle Count in Predicting Ovarian Response During Ovarian Stimulation","authors":"E. C. Tan, P. Chincholkar, S. Yu, S. Lim, R. Renuka, T. Yong, C. Yeo, H. Rajesh","doi":"10.1142/S2661318219500099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Various parameters had been used to predict ovarian response. Among them, Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) demonstrate the most favourable analytical and performance characteristics. In this pilot study, we aim to determine the cut-off levels of AMH using automated AMH assays and AFC in the prediction of poor and high responders. Study Design: Prospective study of 43 women between 21 to 45 years old scheduled for assisted reproduction. AMH levels on day 3 of menstruation were analysed using two immunoassay kits, namely the Beckman Coulter Access AMH and the Roche Elecsys AMH on the two automated analysers Beckman Coulter DxI 800 and Roche Cobas e602 respectively. AFC was also assessed on day 3 of menstruation prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF). These were compared with the number of oocytes retrieved after controlled ovarian stimulation. Results: AMH (Beckman Coulter Access AMH and Roche Elecsys AMH) highly correlated with AFC and the number of oocytes retrieved after ovarian stimulation. Beckman Coulter Access AMH was the better predictor for poor ovarian response with ROC [Formula: see text] of 0.83. For the prediction of a high response, AFC had a higher ROC [Formula: see text] of 0.95. Through ROC, the AMH cut-off level for poor ovarian response was 2.23 ng/ml with Beckman Coulter Access AMH and 2.02 ng/ml with Roche Elecsys AMH, while the AMH cut-off for a high ovarian response was 5.19 ng/ml with Beckman Coulter Access AMH and 4.60 ng/ml with Roche Elecsys AMH. For AFC, the cut-off for poor ovarian response was 18 and for high response was 34. Conclusion: AMH and AFC are reliable predictors of ovarian response. Establishment of specific levels may improve individualised controlled ovarian stimulation and optimise the oocyte yield. Larger studies are required to establish these findings.","PeriodicalId":34382,"journal":{"name":"Fertility Reproduction","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility Reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S2661318219500099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective: Various parameters had been used to predict ovarian response. Among them, Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) demonstrate the most favourable analytical and performance characteristics. In this pilot study, we aim to determine the cut-off levels of AMH using automated AMH assays and AFC in the prediction of poor and high responders. Study Design: Prospective study of 43 women between 21 to 45 years old scheduled for assisted reproduction. AMH levels on day 3 of menstruation were analysed using two immunoassay kits, namely the Beckman Coulter Access AMH and the Roche Elecsys AMH on the two automated analysers Beckman Coulter DxI 800 and Roche Cobas e602 respectively. AFC was also assessed on day 3 of menstruation prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF). These were compared with the number of oocytes retrieved after controlled ovarian stimulation. Results: AMH (Beckman Coulter Access AMH and Roche Elecsys AMH) highly correlated with AFC and the number of oocytes retrieved after ovarian stimulation. Beckman Coulter Access AMH was the better predictor for poor ovarian response with ROC [Formula: see text] of 0.83. For the prediction of a high response, AFC had a higher ROC [Formula: see text] of 0.95. Through ROC, the AMH cut-off level for poor ovarian response was 2.23 ng/ml with Beckman Coulter Access AMH and 2.02 ng/ml with Roche Elecsys AMH, while the AMH cut-off for a high ovarian response was 5.19 ng/ml with Beckman Coulter Access AMH and 4.60 ng/ml with Roche Elecsys AMH. For AFC, the cut-off for poor ovarian response was 18 and for high response was 34. Conclusion: AMH and AFC are reliable predictors of ovarian response. Establishment of specific levels may improve individualised controlled ovarian stimulation and optimise the oocyte yield. Larger studies are required to establish these findings.
自动抗勒氏激素测定和窦卵泡计数预测卵巢刺激反应的比较
目的:应用各种参数预测卵巢反应。其中,抗勒氏杆菌激素(AMH)和窦卵泡计数(AFC)表现出最有利的分析和性能特征。在这项初步研究中,我们的目标是使用自动AMH测定和AFC来确定AMH的截止水平,以预测不良反应和高反应。研究设计:对43名21 - 45岁的女性进行前瞻性研究,计划进行辅助生殖。月经第3天的AMH水平采用Beckman Coulter Access AMH和Roche Elecsys AMH两种免疫分析试剂盒,分别在Beckman Coulter DxI 800和Roche Cobas e602两台自动分析仪上进行分析。AFC也在体外受精(IVF)前月经第3天进行评估。这些与受控卵巢刺激后获得的卵母细胞数量进行了比较。结果:AMH (Beckman Coulter Access AMH和Roche Elecsys AMH)与AFC和卵巢刺激后取出的卵母细胞数量高度相关。Beckman Coulter Access AMH是卵巢不良反应的较好预测因子,ROC为0.83。对于高响应的预测,AFC具有更高的ROC[公式:见文本],为0.95。通过ROC, Beckman Coulter Access AMH对卵巢不良反应的AMH临界值为2.23 ng/ml, Roche Elecsys AMH为2.02 ng/ml,而Beckman Coulter Access AMH对卵巢高反应的AMH临界值为5.19 ng/ml, Roche Elecsys AMH为4.60 ng/ml。对于AFC,卵巢不良反应的临界值为18,高反应的临界值为34。结论:AMH和AFC是卵巢反应的可靠预测因子。建立特定水平可以改善个体化控制卵巢刺激和优化卵母细胞产量。需要更大规模的研究来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信