Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anti-Müllerian Hormone and Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Are Poor Independent Predictors of Live Birth After Assisted Reproductive Technology

  • Reproductive Endocrinology: Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To query if anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and/or follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) predict live birth at the University of Colorado Advanced Reproductive Medicine (CU ARM). This was a retrospective analysis using the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) Clinic Outcome Reporting System database at CU ARM from 2017 to 2019 to identify the pregnancy outcomes of the initial fresh or frozen embryo transfer (FET) and their corresponding AMH and FSH. Fisher’s exact tests were used to identify differences in pregnancy outcome by age group, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curves was used to quantify live birth prediction. A total of 1083 records from 557 patients were reviewed. After only including the first autologous transfer, 270 cycles were analyzed. Overall live birth (L/B) rate was 58.15% (157/270), which declined with increasing age group (p ≤ 0.01). Although AMH significantly decreased with increasing age (p < 0.001), it was not associated with pregnancy outcome (3.54 ng/mL vs. 3.41 ng/mL, p = 0.56); this relationship was unchanged after controlling for age in logistic regression models (p = 0.52). FSH was also not significantly related to pregnancy outcome (7.00 IU/L vs 6.00 IU/L, p = 0.15), and this relationship did not change after controlling for age (p = 0.61). Using AUC, the only variable predictive of live birth was age (p = 0.002). AMH and FSH are not associated with the probability of live birth. Only age was significantly associated with live birth in this series. AMH and FSH should therefore be used cautiously when counseling patients about ART outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request by the corresponding author.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Scheffer GJ, et al. Serum antimullerian hormone levels best reflect the reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(4):979–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, et al. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3103–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, et al. 2014 The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):370–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Seifer DB, MacLaughlin DT, Christian BP, et al. Early follicular serum müllerian-inhibiting substance levels are associated with ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(3):468–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, et al. 2010 Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(2):113–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Broer SL, Dólleman M, Opmeer BC, et al. 2011 AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):46–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smeenk JM, Sweep FC, Zielhuis GA, et al. Antimüllerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracyoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):223–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tal R, Seifer DB, Wantman E, et al. Antimüllerian hormone as a predictor of live birth following assisted reproduction: an analysis of 85,062 fresh and thawed cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System database for 2012–2013. Fertil Steril. 2018 02;109(2):258–265.

  9. Ligon S, Lustik M, Levy G, et al. Low antimüllerian hormone (AMH) is associated with decreased live birth after in vitro fertilization when follicle-stimulating hormone and AMH are discordant. Fertil Steril. 2019;07(1121):73-81.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Steiner AZ, Pritchard D, Stanczyk FZ, et al. Association between biomarkers of ovarian reserve and infertility among older women of reproductive age. JAMA. 2017 10 10;318(14):1367–1376.

  11. Lyttle Schumacher BM, Jukic AMZ, Steiner AZ. Antimüllerian hormone as a risk factor for miscarriage in naturally conceived pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2018;06(1096):1065-1071.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tal R. AMH is strongly associated with cumulative live birth rate independent of age: an analysis of 132,466 cycles from the SART-CORS database for 2014–2016. Hot Topics. ASRM 2021 Scientific Congress & Expo; October 18; Baltimore, MD2021.

  13. Wang X, Jin L, Mao YD, et al. Evaluation of ovarian reserve tests and age in the prediction of poor ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation-a real-world data analysis of 89,002 patients. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:702061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Irani M, Canon C, Robles A, et al. No effect of ovarian stimulation and oocyte yield on euploidy and live birth rates: an analysis of 12 298 trophectoderm biopsies. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(5):1082–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vitek W, Sun F, Baker VL, et al. Lower antimüllerian hormone is associated with lower oocyte yield but not live-birth rate among women with obesity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;04(2224):363.e1-363.e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Infertility Workup for the Women's Health Specialist: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 781. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 06;133(6):e377-e384.

  17. Medicine PCotASfR. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 103(6):e44–50.

  18. Jain T, Soules MR, Collins JA. Comparison of basal follicle-stimulating hormone versus the clomiphene citrate challenge test for ovarian reserve screening. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):180–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Martin JS, Nisker JA, Tummon IS, et al. Future in vitro fertilization pregnancy potential of women with variably elevated day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(6):1238–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Esposito MA, Coutifaris C, Barnhart KT. A moderately elevated day 3 FSH concentration has limited predictive value, especially in younger women. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(1):118–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, et al. 2006 A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):685–718.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Balachandren N, Salman M, Diu NL, et al. Ovarian reserve as a predictor of cumulative live birth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;252:273–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all of the patients at the University of Colorado Advanced Reproductive Medicine as well as the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinical Reporting System database for providing its members and patients with readily accessible clinical information, allowing research of this type to be possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 12631 East 17th Ave, B198-6, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Dana R. Siegel, Liesl Nel-Themaaat, Nanette Santoro & Alex J. Polotsky

  2. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Laura Grau & Mary Sammel

  3. Shady Grove Fertility, Greenwood Village, Aurora, CO, 80111, USA

    Liesl Nel-Themaaat, Nanette Santoro & Alex J. Polotsky

Authors
  1. Dana R. Siegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Grau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Sammel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liesl Nel-Themaaat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nanette Santoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alex J. Polotsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Dana Siegel, Laura Grau, Mary Sammel, and Liesl Nel-Themaat. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Dana Siegel, and all the authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana R. Siegel.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This research study was conducted retrospectively from data obtained for clinical purposes. We consulted with the University of Colorado Institutional Review Board who determined that our study did not need ethical approval. An IRB official waiver of ethical approval was granted from the IRB of the University of Colorado.

The study was exempt by the University of Colorado Institutional Review Board.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 18 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siegel, D.R., Grau, L., Sammel, M. et al. Anti-Müllerian Hormone and Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Are Poor Independent Predictors of Live Birth After Assisted Reproductive Technology. Reprod. Sci. 30, 1316–1323 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-022-01099-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-022-01099-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation