Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

AMH and Medically Assisted Reproduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Textbook of Assisted Reproduction

  • 1292 Accesses

Abstract

In recent years, the utility of ovarian reserve markers in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) has been emphasized by all scientific literature. Markers have a diagnostic role in identifying the ovarian reserve of a woman, and they help in predicting the ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), that is, poor, normal, or high response. In this way, clinicians can personalize pre-treatment counselling with the couple regarding the possible reproductive outcome, and they can choose the best ovarian stimulation protocol and the most suitable FSH starting dose. Many experts agree that an individualized ovarian stimulation therapy is the basis for a good oocyte retrieval in order to optimize the number of oocytes, thus avoiding the risks of an excessive response and therefore the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

Among markers of ovarian reserve, the hormone AMH and the ultrasound antral follicle count (AFC) have definitely proved to be the most accurate markers. AMH use has recently been consolidated by the introduction of completely automated essays of measurement, which promise reliable dosages. In this chapter, we will discuss the possible applications of the marker AMH in MAR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM, Broekmans FJ, de Klerk C, Fauser BC, et al. Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2050–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, Jamieson M, Traynor I, Gaudoin M, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:867–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nardo LG, Fleming R, Howles CM, Bosch E, Hamamah S, Ubaldi FM, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation no longer exists: welcome to the age of individualized ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:141–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. La Marca A, Ferraretti AP, Palermo R, Ubaldi FM. The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32:1–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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;12:685–718.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:113–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Broer SL, Do’lleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:46–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2593–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nelson SM. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current and future applications. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:963–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleming R, Seifer DB, Frattarelli JL, Ruman J. Assessing ovarian response: antral follicle count versus anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:486–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Seifer DB, MacLaughlin DT, Christian BP, Feng B, Shelden RM. Early follicular serum Müllerian-inhibiting substance levels are associated with ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:468–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fanchin R, Schonäuer LM, Righini C, Frydman N, Frydman R, Taieb J. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone dynamics during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:328–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hazout A, Bouchard P, Seifer DB, Aussage P, Junca AM, Cohen-Bacrie P. Serum anti Müllerian hormone/Müllerian-inhibiting substance appears to be a more discriminatory marker of assisted reproductive technology outcome than follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, or estradiol. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:1323–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, Sathanandan M. Inhibin B and anti-mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients? BJOG. 2004;111:1248–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kwee J, Elting ME, Schats R, McDonnell J, Lambalk CB. Ovarian volume and antral follicle count for the prediction of low and hyper responders with in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2007;5:9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. La Marca A, Giulini S, Tirelli A, Bertucci E, Marsella T, Xella S, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone measurement on any day of the menstrual cycle strongly predicts ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:766–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles—implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2414–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Elgindy EA, El-Haieg DO, El-Sebaey A. Anti-Müllerian hormone: correlation of early follicular, ovulatory and midluteal levels with ovarian response and cycle outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1670–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jayaprakasan K, Campbell BK, Hopkisson JF, Clewes JS, Johnson IR, Raine-Fenning NJ. Effect of pituitary desensitization on the early growing follicular cohort estimated using anti-mullerian hormone. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2577–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lekamge DN, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Increased gonadotrophin stimulation does not improve IVF outcomes in patients with predicted poor ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25:515–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Nelson SM, Klein BM, Arce JC. Comparison of antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation in good-prognosis patients at individual fertility clinics in two multicenter trials. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:923–30.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Andersen AN, Witjes H, Gordon K, Mannaerts B, Xpect Investigators. Predictive factors of ovarian response and clinical outcome after IVF/ICSI following a rFSH/GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pre-treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3413–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arce JC, La Marca A, Mirner 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 patients. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1644–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Himabindu Y, Sriharibabu M, Gopinathan K, Satish U, Louis TF, Gopinath P. Anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproduction. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6:27–31.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Tsakos E, Tolikas A, Daniilidis A, Asimakopoulos B. Predictive value of anti-müllerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and antral follicle count on the outcome of ovarian stimulation in women following GnRH-antagonist protocol for IVF/ET. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290:1249–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hsu A, Arny M, Knee AB, Bell C, Cook E, Novak AL, et al. Antral follicle count in clinical practice: analyzing clinical relevance. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:474–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jeppesen JV, Anderson RA, Kelsey TW, Christiansen SL, Kristensen SG, Jayaprakasan K, et al. Which follicles make the most anti-mullerian hormone in humans? Evidence for an abrupt decline in AMH production at the time of follicle selection. Mol Hum Reprod. 2013;19:519–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Batcha M, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Campbell B, et al. The cohort of antral follicles measuring 2–6 mm reflects the quantitative status of ovarian reserve as assessed by serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1775–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1044–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Deb S, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Pincott-Allen C, Raine-Fenning NJ. Intracycle variation in number of antral follicles stratified by size and in endocrine markers of ovarian reserve in women with normal ovulatory menstrual cycles. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:216–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:124–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Iliodromiti S, Nelson SM. Ovarian response biomarkers: physiology and performance. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:182–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Anckaert E, Smitz J, Schiettecatte J, Klein BM, Arce JC. The value of anti-mullerian hormone measurement in the long GnRH agonist protocol: association with ovarian response and gonadotrophin-dose adjustments. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1829–39.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Khader A, Lloyd SM, McConnachie A, Fleming R, Grisendi V, La Marca A, et al. External validation of anti-Müllerian hormone based prediction of live birth in assisted conception. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6:3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 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;98:1107–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. La Marca A, Spada E, Sighinolfi G, Argento C, Tirelli A, Giulini S, et al. Age-specific nomogram for the decline in antral follicle count throughout the reproductive period. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:684–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van Tilborg TC, Eijkemans MJ, Laven JS, Koks CA, de Bruin JP, Scheffer GJ, et al. The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health. 2012;12:29.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Yates AP, Rustamov O, Roberts SA, Lim HY, Pemberton PW, Smith A, et al. Anti-mullerian hormone-tailored stimulation protocols improve outcomes whilst reducing adverse effects and costs of IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2353–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lan VT, Linh NK, Tuong HM, Wong PC, Howles CM. Anti-Müllerian hormone versus antral follicle count for defining the starting dose of FSH. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27:390–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Popovic-Todorovic B, Loft A, Lindhard A, Bangsbøll S, Andersson AM, Andersen AN. A prospective study of predictive factors of ovarian response in ‘standard’ IVF/ICSI patients treated with recombinant FSH. A suggestion for a recombinant FSH dosage normogram. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:781–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fauser BC, Diedrich K, Devroey P, Evian Annual Reproduction Workshop Group 2007. Predictors of ovarian response: progress towards individualized treatment in ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:1–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Al-Azemi M, Killick SR, Duffy S, Pye C, Refaat B, Hill N, et al. Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:414–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:26–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Howles CM, Saunders H, Alam V, Engrand P, FSH Treatment Guidelines Clinical Panel. Predictive factors and a corresponding treatment algorithm for controlled ovarian stimulation in patients treated with recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) procedures. An analysis of 1378 patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22:907–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Olivennes F, Howles CM, Borini A, Germond M, Trew G, Wikland M, et al. Individualizing FSH dose for assisted reproduction using a novel algorithm: the CONSORT study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:195–204.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pouly JL, Olivennes F, Massin N, Celle M, Caizergues N, Contard F, French CONSORT Study Group. Usability and utility of the CONSORT calculator for FSH starting doses: a prospective observational study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:347–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. La Marca A, Grisendi V, Giulini S, Argento C, Tirelli A, Dondi G, et al. Individualization of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles using the antral follicle count. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6:11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. La Marca A, Papaleo E, Grisendi V, Argento C, Giulini S, Volpe A. Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles. BJOG. 2012;119:1171–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Papaleo E, Zaffagnini S, Munaretto M, Vanni VS, Rebonato G, Grisendi V, et al. Clinical application of a nomogram based on age, serum FSH and AMH to select the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles: a retrospective two-centres study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207:94–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nyboe Andersen A, Nelson SM, Fauser BC, García-Velasco JA, Klein BM, Arce JC, ESTHER-1 Study Group. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:387–96.e4.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, ESHRE Working Group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1616–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT, Segars JH. A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:350–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor? A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:1–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2742–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A, Faris R, Braude P, Khalaf Y. Long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus short agonist versus antagonist regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:147–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Youssef MA, van Wely M, Al-Inany H, Madani T, Jahangiri N, Khodabakhshi S, et al. A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:112–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:611–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pandian Z, McTavish AR, Aucott L, Hamilton MP, Bhattacharya S. Interventions for ‘poor responders’ to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:CD004379.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Humaidan P, Quartarolo J, Papanikolaou EG. Preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: guidance for the clinician. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:389–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Papanikolaou EG, Humaidan P, Polyzos N, Kalantaridou S, Kol S, Benadiva C, et al. New algorithm for OHSS prevention. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:147.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Toftager M, Bogstad J, Bryndorf T, Løssl K, Roskær J, Holland T, et al. Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1253–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Zorzovilis IZ, Petsas GK, Lainas GT, Alexopoulou E, et al. Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF: a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT). Hum Reprod. 2010;25:683–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Griesinger G, Diedrich K, Devroey P, Kolibianakis EM. GnRH agonist for triggering final oocyte maturation in the GnRH antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:159–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Eldar-Geva T, Zylber-Haran E, Babayof R, Halevy-Shalem T, Ben-Chetrit A, Tsafrir A, et al. Similar outcome for cryopreserved embryo transfer following GnRH-antagonist/GnRH-agonist, GnRH-antagonist/HCG or long protocol ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:148–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Orvieto R. Triggering final follicular maturation—hCG, GnRH-agonist or both, when and to whom? J Ovarian Res. 2015;8:60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Casper RF. Introduction: gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering of final follicular maturation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:865–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Griesinger G, Schultz L, Bauer T, Broessner A, Frambach T, Kissler S. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in combination with a “freeze-all” strategy: a prospective multicentric study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2029–33.e1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mother-Infant Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and Clinica Eugin Modena, Modena, Italy

    Valentina Grisendi

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy

    Antonio La Marca

Authors
  1. Valentina Grisendi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio La Marca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Consultant Reproductive Endocrinology & IVF Millennium Medical Center MMC IVF, Dubai Health Care City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Gautam Nand Allahbadia

  2. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

    Baris Ata

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wright State University, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, OH, USA

    Steven R. Lindheim

  4. X&Y Fertility, Leicester, UK

    Bryan J. Woodward

  5. School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Newyork, USA

    Bala Bhagavath

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Grisendi, V., La Marca, A. (2020). AMH and Medically Assisted Reproduction. In: Allahbadia, G.N., Ata, B., Lindheim, S.R., Woodward, B.J., Bhagavath, B. (eds) Textbook of Assisted Reproduction. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2377-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2377-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2376-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2377-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation