4.0 Article

Ovarian reserve markers in women using various hormonal contraceptives

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2019.1702158

关键词

Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH); contraceptive pill; hormonal contraception; LNG-IUS; ovarian reserve markers

资金

  1. European Union, Interreg V OKS [20200407]
  2. Roche Diagnostics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess whether the ovarian reserve markers anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) were lower among women using the progestin-only pill (POP) or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and similar to the decrease observed in combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill users. Methods: This retrospective study comprised 565 hormonal contraceptive users (COC, POP, LNG-IUS or contraceptive vaginal ring) and 983 non-hormonal contraceptive users, who were seen in two Danish fertility assessment and counselling clinics between 2015 and 2019. Adjusted multiple regression analysis was used to examine the differences in AMH and AFC between hormonal and non-hormonal contraceptive users. Results: Compared with non-hormonal contraceptive users, AMH was 31.1% lower among COC users [95% confidence interval (CI) -39.6%, -25.9%; p < 0.001], 35.6% lower among POP users (95% CI -49.0%, -18.6%; p < 0.001) and 17.1% lower among LNG-IUS users (95% CI -31.4%, 0.002%; p = 0.052); no significant differences were seen among vaginal ring users. Compared with non-hormonal contraceptive users, AFC was 31.3% lower among COC users (95% CI -35.0%, -25.3%; p < 0.001) and 29.7% lower among POP users (-39.1%, -17.9%; p < 0.001); no significant differences were seen among LNG-IUS or vaginal ring users. Ovarian volume was more than 50% reduced among COC and vaginal ring users (p < 0.001) but was unchanged among POP and LNG-IUS users. Conclusion: Assessment of ovarian reserve markers among users of all types of hormonal contraception should be interpreted cautiously and the type of contraceptive method considered.

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

4.0
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