Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 449–456 | Cite as

Anti-mullerian hormone and cumulative pregnancy outcome in in-vitro fertilization

  • Suresh KiniEmail author
  • H. W. Raymond Li
  • Dave Morrell
  • Sue Pickering
  • K. Joo Thong
Assisted Reproduction



To evaluate the role of Anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) in predicting cumulative pregnancy outcome during in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.


Serum AMH levels on day 6 of ovarian stimulation were taken from 180 women undergoing IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). The main outcome measures were ongoing pregnancy in the fresh cycle, cumulative ongoing pregnancy and ovarian response.


There was a trend of higher median AMH levels in subjects achieving ongoing pregnancy in the fresh IVF cycle. The median AMH levels were significantly higher in subjects attaining ongoing pregnancy cumulatively and in subjects showing ovarian hyper-response in the stimulated cycle. Areas under the ROC curves were 0.606 and 0.792 for the prediction of cumulative ongoing pregnancy and ovarian hyper-response respectively.


Serum AMH concentration on day 6 of stimulation was significantly higher in subjects who achieved cumulative ongoing pregnancy in IVF compared to those who did not. Serum AMH is a reasonably good predictor of ovarian hyper-response.


Anti-mullerian hormone Assisted conception Cumulative ongoing pregnancy Ovarian response 



We thank the staff at Edinburgh Fertility and Reproductive Endocrine centre, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK for their support and management of patients.


  1. 1.
    Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):685–718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cahill DJ, Prosser CJ, Wardle PG, Ford WC, Hull MG. Relative influence of serum follicle hormone, age and other factors on ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101(11):999–1002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharif K, Elgendy M, Lashen H, Afnan M. Age and basal follicle stimulating hormone as predictors of in vitro fertilization outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105(1):107–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ng EH, Tang OS, Ho PC. The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian responses in an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(9):1937–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nahum R, Shifren JL, Chang YC, Leykin L, Isaacson K, Toth TL. Antral follicle assessment as a tool for predicting outcome in IVF—is it a better predictor than age and FSH? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18(3):151–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ficicioglu C, Kutlu T, Baglam E, Bakacak Z. Early follicular antimullerian hormone as an indicator of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):592–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Anti-Mullerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):602–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwee J, Schats R, McDonnell J, Themmen A, de Jong F, Lambalk C. Evaluation of anti-Mullerian hormone as a test for the prediction of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):737–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ. The role of antimullierian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):705–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tiitinen A, Hyden-Granskog C, Gissler M. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The value of cryopreservation on cumulative pregnancy rates per single oocyte retrieval should not be forgotten. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2439–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ubaldi F, Rienzi L, Baroni E, Ferrero S, Iacobelli M, Minasi MG, et al. Cumulative pregnancy rates after transfer of fresh and thawed embryos. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;115S:S106–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borini A, Cattoli M, Bulletti C, Coticchio G. Clinical efficiency of oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008;1127:49–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1545–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Ryckaert G, et al. Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(5):1062–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakhuda GS. The role of mullerian inhibiting substance in female reproduction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20(3):257–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee MM, Donahoe PK, Hasegawa T, Silverman B, Crist GB, Best S, et al. Mullerian inhibiting substance in humans: normal levels from infancy to adulthood. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;81:571–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    La Marca A, Broekmans FJ, Volpe A, Fauser BC, Macklon NS. ESHRE Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology—AMH Round Table: Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): what do we still need to know? Hum Reprod. 2009;24(9):2264–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singer T, Barad DH, Weghofer A, Gleicher N. Correlation of antimüllerian hormone and baseline follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2616–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hehenkamp WJ, Looman CW, Themmen AP, de Jong FH, Te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ. Anti-Mullerian hormone levels in the spontaneous menstrual cycle do not show substantial fluctuation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(10):4057–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, Volpe A. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3103–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsepelidis S, Devreker F, Demeestere I, Flahaut A, Gervy Ch, Englert Y. Stable serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone during the menstrual cycle: a prospective study in normo-ovulatory women. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1837–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wunder DM, Bersinger NA, Yared M, Kretschmer R, Birkhäuser MH. Statistically significant changes of antimüllerian hormone and inhibin levels during the physiologic menstrual cycle in reproductive age women. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(4):927–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Streuli I, Fraisse T, Chapron C, Bijaoui G, Bischof P, de Ziegler D. Clinical uses of anti-Müllerian hormone assays: pitfalls and promises. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(1):226–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fanchin R, Schonäuer LM, Righini C, Frydman N, Frydman R, Taieb J. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone dynamics during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(2):328–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Visser JA, de Jong FH, Laven JS, Themmen AP. Anti-Müllerian hormone: a new marker for ovarian function. Reproduction. 2006;131(1):1–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weenen C, Laven JS, Von Bergh AR, Cranfield M, Groome NP, Visser JA, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone expression pattern in the human ovary: potential implications for initial and cyclic follicle recruitment. Mol Hum Reprod. 2004;10(2):77–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-mullerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles—implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(9):2414–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peñarrubia J, Fábregues F, Manau D, Creus M, Casals G, Casamitjana R, et al. Basal and stimulation day 5 anti-Mullerian hormone serum concentrations as predictors of ovarian response and pregnancy in assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist—gonadotropin treatmen. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(4):915–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    La Marca A, Volpe A. Anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) in female reproduction: is measurement of circulating AMH a useful tool? Clin Endocrinol. 2006;64(6):603–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hazout A, Bouchard P, Seifer DB, Aussage P, Junca AM, Cohen-Bacrie P. Serum antimüllerian hormone/müllerian-inhibiting substance appears to be a more discriminatory marker of assisted reproductive technology outcome than follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, or estradiol. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(5):1323–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silberstein T, MacLaughlin DT, Shai I, Trimarchi JR, Lambert-Messerlian G, Seifer DB, et al. MIS levels at the time of HCG administration in IVF cycles predict both ovarian reserve and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(1):159–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G. Basal level of AMH is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(8):2022–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smeenk JM, Sweep FC, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA, Thomas CM, Braat DD. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lie Fong S, Baart EB, Martini E, Schipper I, Visser JA, Themmen AP, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone: a marker for oocyte quantity, oocyte quality and embryo quality? Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16(5):664–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, et al. Circulating basal anti-mullerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1586–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, Jamieson M, Traynor I, Gaudoin M, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(4):867–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tocci A, Ferrero S, Iacobelli M, Greco E. Negligible serum anti-mullerian hormone: pregnancy and birth after a 1-month course of an oral contraceptive, ovarian hyperstimulation, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(1):395.e9–.e12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suresh Kini
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • H. W. Raymond Li
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dave Morrell
    • 1
    • 4
  • Sue Pickering
    • 1
    • 5
  • K. Joo Thong
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Assisted Conception ProgrammeRoyal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Ward 35, Assisted Conception Unit, NHS TaysideNinewells HospitalDundeeUK
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyThe University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary HospitalPokfulamHong Kong
  4. 4.Reproductive Medicine LaboratoryRoyal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  5. 5.Division of Reproductive and Developmental SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations