4.6 Review

Can anti-Mullerian hormone concentrations be used to determine gonadotrophin dose and treatment protocol for ovarian stimulation?

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 431-439

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.02.027

关键词

anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH); gonadotrophin-releasing hormone; GnRH agonist; GnRH antagonist; ovarian response; ovarian stimulation

资金

  1. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, St Prex, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to predict the response potential of women to ovarian stimulation may allow the development of individualized ovarian stimulation protocols. This tailored approach to ovarian stimulation could reduce the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women predicted to have an excessive response to stimulation or could improve pregnancy outcomes in women classed as poor responders. Namely, variation of the type of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue or the form and dosage of gonadotrophin used for stimulation could be adjusted according to an individual's response potential. The serum concentration of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is established as a reliable marker of ovarian reserve, with decreasing concentrations correlated with reduced response potential. This review examines the current evidence evaluating individualized ovarian stimulation protocols using AMH concentration as a predictive marker of ovarian response. The rationale behind why specific treatment protocols based on individual response potential may be more suitable is also discussed. Based on current evidence, it appears that the use of AMH serum concentrations to predict ovarian response and optimize treatment strategies is a promising approach for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. However, prospective randomized controlled trials evaluating this approach are needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn. (C) 2013, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据