Circulating basal anti-Müllerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization

Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels correlate with ovarian response in idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism

“…Even though both AMH and AFC appear as good predictors of ovarian reserve; AMH may be superior in this specific group of patients mainly due to 2 reasons: first, AMH seems superior compared to AFC in prediction of hyper response which is extremely important in WHO group I patients with a high ovarian reserve [13]; second, in case of poor ovarian reserve, which can also occur in IHH patients, relying on AFC assessment when scheduling a COH cycle can lead to diagnostic confusions due to long existing small ovaries that make AFC assessment technically impractical [7,8].…”

“…Furthermore, authors decided that AMH performed better than AFC with regard to live birth [11]. In another interesting study, AMH was found superior to basal FSH and AFC, and had the potential to predict patient's ovarian response to COH while helping to reduce iatrogenic complications of COH [13]. In that study, AMH was also considered as a better predictor than FSH but not AFC especially for poor response.…”

“…Over the last decade, many prospective studies have been evaluated the plausible role of AMH in predicting both quantitative and qualitative ovarian response in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) [8]. Consequently, several groups have addressed serum levels of AMH as a novel and superior clinical marker of ovarian reserve and/or ovarian response compared with conventional markers [13]. Owing to the unique advantages of AMH, the primary objective of this preliminary study is to investigate the accuracy of serum AMH levels in predicting ovarian response prior to COH in IVF cycles, and as a secondary outcome to assess the correlation between serum AMH levels and COH outcomes including embryological data in a cohort of IHH patients.…”

Do estrogen receptor alpha polymorphisms have any impact on the outcome in an ART program?

“…Many factors have been examined as prognostic markers related to the ovarian response to gonadotropin administration, including age [37], hormones such as follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) [29], estradiol (E2) [18], inhibin B [24] and anti-Müllerian hormone [24,25], smoking [9], and sonographic indices of ovarian reserve such as ovarian volume, antral follicle count and ovarian blood flow [16,32,33]. Furthermore, certain predictive models of ovarian response have been developed, but they have modest accuracy and limited clinical use, because of high intra-and inter-individual variability [8] .…”

The value of human chorionic gonadotropin stimulation test in predicting ovarian response during in-vitro fertilization

“…Until recently, evaluation of ovarian reserve and prediction of IVF success focused on hormonal parameters that mainly reflect granulosa cell function. While most available tests are based on measuring baseline levels, such as those of FSH [1,2], anti-Müllerian hormone [AMH, [3][4][5][6], inhibin B [7][8][9], basal estradiol-E 2 [10][11][12] or antral follicle count [11,[13][14][15], some dynamic tests were developed to predict ovarian reserve by its response to certain stimuli, such as clomiphene citrate challenge test [CCCT - [16][17][18][19], exogenous FSH ovarian reserve test and gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist stimulation test . However, inconsistencies in the prognostic value for IVF success in these tests limit their clinical applicability.…”