AMH-based ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) used to establish patient profiles and predict ovarian response to stimulation, its role in assisted reproductive technology techniques is crucial.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the evidence from published RCTs about the efficacy and safety of AMH-based ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation.

METHOD

Search strategy: electronic databases were searched using the following MeSH terms (Anti-Müllerian hormone OR AMH) AND (IVF OR ICSI) and (tailored OR based).

SELECTION CRITERIA

only RCTs were included. Four studies were included in the quantitative synthesis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

the extracted data were entered into RevMan software, the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Primary outcomes: ongoing pregnancy: test for overall effect was in favor of AMH-based group, but there was no statistically significant difference [RR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.84-1.08), P = 0.44]. Severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) test or overall effect was in favor of AMH-based group, but there was still no statistically significant difference [RR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.43-1.06), P = 0.09]. Secondary outcomes were dose of rFSH, the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilized oocytes, embryos (day 3), blastocysts (day 5), and duration of stimulation. Only the dose of rFSH and duration of stimulation were in the favor of AMH-based group, with statistically significant difference. The other four secondary outcomes were in the favor of the conventional group but with no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

AMH-based stimulation has the same results of pregnancy rate and risk of OHSS and can reduce the dose of rFSH and duration of stimulation.