4.7 Article

Circulating antimullerian hormone and steroid hormone levels remain high in pregnant women with polycystic ovary syndrome at term

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 111, 期 3, 页码 588-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.028

关键词

Antimullerian hormone; androgens; polycystic ovary syndrome; pregnancy

资金

  1. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  2. Finnish Medical Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate plasma antimullerian hormone (AMH) concentration and its relation to steroid hormone levels in pregnant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and controls at term. Design: Case-control study. Setting: University-affiliated hospital. Patient(s): A total of 74 pregnant women at term: 25 women with PCOS (aged 31.6 +/- 3.9 years [mean +/- standard deviation], body mass index 24.0 +/- 3.9 kg/m2, mean gestational length 279 +/- 9 days) and 49 controls (aged 31.7 +/- 3.3 years, body mass index 24.0 +/- 3.3 kg/m2, mean gestational length 281 +/- 9 days). Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Plasma AMH and steroid hormone levels. Result(s): Antimullerian hormone, T, and androstenedione levels were higher in women with PCOS at term compared with controls, whereas estrogen and P levels were similar. The differences were pronounced in women carrying a female fetus. Testosterone and AMH levels correlated positively in both groups, but E2 levels only in women with PCOS. Conclusion(s): Pregnant women with PCOS present with elevated AMH and androgen levels even at term, suggesting a hormonal imbalance during PCOS pregnancy. Differences were detected especially in pregnancies with a female fetus, raising the question of whether female pregnancies are more susceptible to AMH and steroid hormone actions. (C) Copyright (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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

4.7
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