Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) is a dimeric glycoprotein with a molecular weight of 140 kD, encoded by a gene on the short arm of chromosome and a member of the transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) superfamily. The expression of AMH is markedly different in males and females, both in concentration and temporality. In males, Sertoli cells maintain a high concentration of AMH in utero which peaks shortly after birth and then drops precipitously at puberty. In females, granulosa cells produce very low levels of AMH in utero followed by a transient spike in the neonatal period. Concentrations of the hormone then rise steadily through adolescence to a peak in the mid-twenties and subsequently decline until becoming undetectable in menopause. The study aimed to understand how Clinicians and Clinical Embryologists used anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) test to assess ovarian reserve, direct patient selection and treatment regimens and guide in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle management in all registered fertility hospitals in a West African country, Ghana. A web-based survey (questionnaire) using google forms was performed to solicit responses from all IVF hospitals that are registered with the Fertility Society of Ghana (FERSOG). This questionnaire consisted of fifteen (15) broader questions, ten (10) of which assessed the clinics’ use of AMH. Responses were screened for quality to verify that only one (1) survey was completed by each IVF centre. The study was conducted during May and June 2020 at the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Department of the Airport Women’s Hospital (AWH) in Accra, Ghana. Results are reported as the proportion of IVF cycles represented by a particular answer choice. Survey responses were completed from 15 IVF centres, representing 2504 IVF cycles performed annually. A good majority (73.3%) [1835 IVF cycles] of the respondent IVF hospitals reported to use AMH as a first line test and 93.3% reported it as the best test for evaluating ovarian reserve. Another 66.7% reported that AMH results were extremely relevant to clinical practice. However, in contrast, for predicting live birth rate, 60% reported age as the best predictor in their practice. Overall, our results indicate that AMH is considered a first line test for assessing ovarian reserve and is relevant to the clinical practice of majority of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) providers in Ghana.
References
[1]
Bradley, S.E.K., Chelsea, B.P., Akinrinola, B. and Trevor, C. (2019) Global Contraceptive Failure Rates: Who Is Most at Risk? Studies in Family Planning, 50, 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12085
[2]
Hiadzi, R.A. and Bryan, J.W. (2019) Infertility Treatment Decision-Making in Ghana and Contestations That May Arise: A Prospective Sociological Study. Global Reproductive Health, 4, e32. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRH.0000000000000032
[3]
Leridon, H. (2004) Can Assisted Reproduction Technology Compensate for the Natural Decline in Fertility with Age? A Model Assessment. Human Reproduction, 19, 1548-1553. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh304
[4]
Moolhuijsen, L.M.E. and Visser, J.A. (2020) Anti-Müllerian Hormone and Ovarian Reserve: Update on Assessing Ovarian Function. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 105, 3361-3373.
[5]
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) (2015) Diagnostic Evaluation of the Infertile Female: A Committee Opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 103, e44-e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.019
[6]
Tomlinson, M.J., Harbottle, J.S., Woodward, B.J. and Lindsay, K.S. (2012) Association of Biomedical Andrologists-Laboratory Andrology Guidelines for Good Practice. Human Fertility, 3, 156-173. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2012.747888
[7]
Lehmann, P., Maria P.V., Julio, S., Louise, P., Wael, J., François, B., Simo, P. and Isaac-Jacques, K. (2014) Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH): A Reliable Biomarker of Oocyte Quality in IVF. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetic, 31, 493-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0193-4
[8]
Inhorn, M.C. and Patrizio, P. (2015) Infertility around the Globe: New Thinking on Gender, Reproductive Technologies and Global Movements in the 21st Century. Human Reproduction, 21, 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv016
[9]
Ombelet, W. (2007) Affordable IVF for Developing Countries. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 3, 257-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60337-9
[10]
Hörbst, V. and Wolf, A. (2014) ARV and ART: Medicoscapes and the Unequal Place-Making for Biomedical Treatments in Sub-Saharan Africa. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 28, 182-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12091
[11]
Dilger, H., Kane, A. and Langwick, S.A. (2012) Medicine, Mobility, and Power in Global Africa: Transnational Health and Healing. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2, 30-32.
[12]
Hörbst, V. and Gerrits, T. (2015) Transnational Connections of Health Professionals: Medicoscapes and Assisted Reproduction in Ghana and Uganda. Ethnicity and Health, 21, 357-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2015.1105184
[13]
Martin, L.J. (2009) Reproductive Tourism in the Age of Globalization. Globalizations, 6, 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747730802500398
[14]
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) (2015) Testing and Interpreting Measures of Ovarian Reserve: A Committee Opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 103, e9-e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.093
[15]
Ferraretti, A.P. and Gianaroli, L. (2014) The Bologna Criteria for the Definition of Poor Ovarian Responders: Is There a Need for Revision? Human Reproduction, 29, 1842-1845. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu139
[16]
Gianaroli, L. (2012) Best Practices of ASRM and ESHRE: A Journey through Reproductive Medicine. Fertility and Sterility, 98, 1380-1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1164
[17]
Seifer, D.B. and Maclaughlin, D.T. (2007) Mullerian Inhibiting Substance Is an Ovarian Growth Factor of Emerging Clinical Significance. Fertility and Sterility, 88, 539-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.014
[18]
Silva, M.S.B. and Giacobini, P. (2020) New Insights into Anti-Müllerian Hormone Role in the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis and Neuroendocrine Development. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-020-03576-x
[19]
Catherine, D., McCormack, Shalem, Y.L., Denise, L.F., Gustaaf, A.D. and Claire, T.R. (2019) Anti-Müllerian Hormone Levels in Recurrent Embryonic Miscarriage Patients Are Frequently Abnormal, and May Affect Pregnancy Outcomes. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 39, 623-627. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2018.1552669
[20]
Broer, S.L. (2011) Anti-Mullerian Hormone Predicts Menopause: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study in Normoovulatory Women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 96, 2532-2539. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-2776
[21]
Hansen, K.R. (2011) Correlation of Ovarian Reserve Tests with Histologically Determined Primordial Follicle Number. Fertility and Sterility, 95, 170-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.006
[22]
van Disseldorp (2010) Comparison of Inter- and Intra-Cycle Variability of Anti Mullerian Hormone and Antral Follicle Counts. Human Reproduction, 25, 221-227. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep366
[23]
Maheshwari, A., Hamilton, M. and Bhattacharya, S. (2008) A Survey of Clinicians’ Views on Age and Access to IVF and the Use of Tests of Ovarian Reserve Prior to IVF in the United Kingdom. Human Fertility, 11, 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270701541095
[24]
Van Voorhis, B.J. (2010) What Do Consistently High-Performing in Vitro Fertilization Programs in the U.S. Do? Fertility and Sterility, 94, 1346-1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.048
[25]
Barnhart, K. and Osheroff, J. (1998) Follicle Stimulating Hormone as a Predictor of Fertility. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 10, 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001703-199806000-00009
[26]
Broekmans, F.J. (2006) A Systematic Review of Tests Predicting Ovarian Reserve and IVF Outcome. Human Reproduction Update, 12, 685-718. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dml034
[27]
Esposito, M.A., Coutifaris, C. and Barnhart, K.T.A. (2002) Moderately Elevated Day 3 FSH Concentration Has Limited Predictive Value, Especially in Younger Women. Human Reproduction, 17, 118-223. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.1.118
[28]
Eldar-Geva, T. (2005) Dynamic Assays of Inhibin B, Anti-Mullerian Hormone and Estradiol Following FSH Stimulation and Ovarian Ultrasonography as Predictors of IVF Outcome. Human Reproduction, 20, 3178-3183. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei203
[29]
Nardo, L.G. (2009) Circulating Basal Anti-Mullerian Hormone Levels as Predictor of Ovarian Response in Women Undergoing Ovarian Stimulation for in Vitro Fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 92, 1586-1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.127
[30]
La Marca, A. (2010) Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) as a Predictive Marker in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). Human Reproduction Update, 16, 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp036
[31]
Singer, T. (2009) Correlation of Antimullerian Hormone and Baseline Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Levels. Fertility and Sterility, 91, 2616-2619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.034
[32]
Nelson, S.M., Yates, R.W. and Fleming, R. (2007) Serum Anti-Mullerian Hormone and FSH: Prediction of Live Birth and Extremes of Response in Stimulated Cycles—Implications for Individualization of Therapy. Human Reproduction, 22, 2414-2421. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem204
[33]
Smeenk, J.M. (2007) Antimullerian Hormone Predicts Ovarian Responsiveness, But Not Embryo Quality or Pregnancy, after in Vitro Fertilization or Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection. Fertility and Sterility, 87, 223-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.06.019
[34]
Tal, R. (2015) Antimullerian Hormone as Predictor of Implantation and Clinical Pregnancy after Assisted Conception: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Fertility and Sterility, 103, 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.041
[35]
Iliodromiti, S. (2014) The Predictive Accuracy of Anti-Mullerian Hormone for Live Birth after Assisted Conception: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Human Reproduction Update, 20, 560-570. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu003
[36]
Schipper, I. (2012) Limitations and Pitfalls of Antimullerian Hormone Measurements. Fertility and Sterility, 98, 823-824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1105
[37]
Broer, S.L. (2014) Anti-Mullerian Hormone: Ovarian Reserve Testing and Its Potential Clinical Implications. Human Reproduction Update, 20, 688-701. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu020
[38]
Nelson, S.M. and La Marca, A. (2011) The Journey from the Old to the New AMH Assay: How to Avoid Getting Lost in the Values. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23, 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.06.011
[39]
Freour, T. (2007) Measurement of Serum Anti-Mullerian Hormone by Beckman Coulter ELISA and DSL ELISA: Comparison and Relevance in Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART). Clinica Chimica Acta, 375, 162-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2006.06.013
[40]
Rustamov, O. (2012) Anti-Mullerian Hormone: Poor Assay Reproducibility in a Large Cohort of Subjects Suggests Sample Instability. Human Reproduction, 27, 3085-3091. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des260
[41]
Zuvela, E., Walls, M. and Matson, P. (2013) Within-Laboratory and Between-Laboratory Variability in the Measurement of Antimullerian Hormone Determined within an External Quality Assurance Scheme. Reproductive Biology, 13, 255-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repbio.2013.04.005
