Antimullerian hormone as predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta analysis
Antimullerian hormone has weak association with implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART, but its predictive ability for pregnancy rates is greatest in women with diminished ovarian reserve.
Reshef Tal, M.D., Ph.D., Oded Tal, Ph.D., Benjamin J. Seifer, B.S.M.E., David B. Seifer, M.D.
Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages 119-130
To assess whether antimüllerian hormone (AMH) is a predictor of implantation and/or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Women undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection in nondonor cycles.
Measurement of serum AMH level.
Main Outcome Measure(s):
Diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for AMH as a predictor of implantation and/or clinical pregnancy.
A total of 525 observational studies were identified, of which 19 were selected (comprising 5,373 women). Studies reporting clinical pregnancy rates in women with unspecified ovarian reserve (n = 11), diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) (n = 4), and polycystic ovary syndrome (n = 4) were included, together with studies reporting implantation rates (n = 4). The OR for AMH as a predictor of implantation in women with unspecified ovarian reserve (n = 1,591) was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49–2.25), whereas the AUC was 0.591 (95% CI 0.563–0.618). The OR for AMH as a predictor of clinical pregnancy in these women (n = 4,324) was 2.10 (95% CI 1.82–2.41), whereas the AUC was 0.634 (95% CI 0.618–0.650). The predictive ability of AMH for pregnancy was greatest in women with DOR (n = 615), with OR and AUC of 3.96 (95% CI 2.57–6.10) and 0.696 (95% CI 0.641–0.751), respectively. In contrast, AMH had no significant predictive ability in women with PCOS (n = 414), with OR and AUC of 1.18 (95% CI 0.53–2.62) and 0.600 (95% CI 0.547–0.653), respectively.
Antimüllerian hormone has weak association with implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in assisted reproductive technology but may still have some clinical utility in counseling women undergoing fertility treatment regarding pregnancy rates, particularly those with DOR.
Read the full text at: http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(14)02223-7/fulltext