Non-equivalence of anti-Müllerian hormone automated assays—clinical implications for use as a companion diagnostic for individualised gonadotrophin dosing

STUDY QUESTION Can anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) automated immunoassays (Elecsys® and Access) be used interchangeably as a companion diagnostic for individualisation of follitropin delta dosing? SUMMARY ANSWER The Access assay gives systematically higher AMH values than the Elecsys® assay which results in over 29% of women being misclassified to a different follitropin delta dose. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Follitropin delta is the first gonadotrophin to be licenced with a companion diagnostic, the Roche Elecsys® AMH Plus assay. Alternative automated AMH assays including the Beckman Coulter Access immunoassay are considered to provide similar results, but clarification of their suitability as an off-licence companion diagnostic for follitropin delta is required. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We systematically searched the existing literature for studies that had measured AMH using both automated assays in the same cohort of women. Individual paired patient data were acquired from each author and combined with unpublished data. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We identified five eligible prospective published studies and one additional unpublished study. A 100% response from the authors was achieved. We collected paired AMH data on samples from 848 women. Passing–Bablok regression and Bland–Altman plots were used to compare the analytical performance of the two assays. The degree of misclassification to different treatment categories was estimated should the Access AMH be used as a companion diagnostic instead of the Elecsys AMH in determining the dosing of follitropin delta. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The Passing–Bablok regression shows a linear relationship (Access = −0.05 + 1.10 × Elecsys). The Access assay systematically gave higher values by an average of 10% compared with the Elecsys assay (slope = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.12). The average of the difference between the two assays was 2.7 pmol/l. The 95% limits of agreement were −11.7 to 6.3. Overall 253 (29.3%) women would have received an inappropriate follitropin delta dose if the Beckman Coulter Access assay was used. Specifically, a substantial proportion of women (ranging from 49% to 90% depending on the AMH category) would receive a lower dose of follitropin delta based on the Access AMH assay. Up to 10% (ranging from 2.5% to 10%) of women with high ovarian reserve would have been misclassified to a greater dose of follitropin delta based on the Access AMH assay. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION We compared the values of the two principal automated assays, extrapolation of our findings to other automated AMH assays would require similar comprehensive examination. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS An international standard for the calibration of the automated AMH assays is warranted to facilitate efficient use of AMH as a companion diagnostic. The variable calibration of alternative automated AMH assays may adversely impact on the performance of the follitropin delta dosing algorithm. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No formal funding has been received for this study. SI is funded by a UK Medical Research Council skills development fellowship (MR/N015177/1). SMN has received speakers fees, travel to meetings and participated in advisory Boards for Beckman Coulter, IBSA, Ferring Pharmaecuticals, Finox, Merck Serono, Merck and Roche Diagnostics. SMN has received research support from Ansh laboratories, Beckman Coulter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics

Prospective study into the value of the automated Elecsys antimüllerian hormone assay for the assessment of the ovarian growing follicle pool

ObjectiveTo evaluate a new fully automated assay measuring antimüllerian hormone (AMH; Roche Elecsys) against antral follicle count in women of reproductive age.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingHospital infertility clinics and academic centers.Patient(s)Four hundred fifty-one women aged 18 to 44 years, with regular menstrual cycles.Intervention(s)None.Main Outcome Measure(s)AMH and antral follicle count (AFC) determined at a single visit on day 2–4 of the menstrual cycle.Result(s)There was a statistically significant variance in AFC but not in AMH between centers. Both AFC and AMH varied by age (overall Spearman rho −0.50 for AFC and −0.47 for AMH), but there was also significant between-center variation in the relationship between AFC and age but not for AMH. There was a strong positive correlation between AMH and AFC (overall spearman rho 0.68), which varied from 0.49 to 0.87 between centers. An agreement table using AFC cutoffs of 7 and 15 showed classification agreement in 63.2%, 56.9% and 74.5% of women for low, medium, and high groups, respectively.Conclusion(s)The novel fully automated Elecsys AMH assay shows good correlations with age and AFC in women of reproductive age, providing a reproducible measure of the growing follicle pool

Does polycystic ovarian morphology influence the response to treatment with pulsatile GnRH in functional hypothalamic amenorrhea?

BACKGROUND: Pulsatile GnRH therapy is the gold standard treatment for ovulation induction in women having functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA). The use of pulsatile GnRH therapy in FHA patients with polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM), called “FHA-PCOM”, has been little studied in the literature and results remain contradictory. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of pulsatile GnRH therapy for ovulation induction between FHA and “FHA-PCOM” patients in order to search for an eventual impact of PCOM. METHODS: Retrospective study from August 2002 to June 2015, including 27 patients with FHA and 40 “FHA-PCOM” patients (85 and 104 initiated cycles, respectively) treated by pulsatile GnRH therapy for induction ovulation. RESULTS: The two groups were similar except for markers of PCOM (follicle number per ovary, serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone level and ovarian area), which were significantly higher in patients with “FHA-PCOM”. There was no significant difference between the groups concerning the ovarian response: with equivalent doses of GnRH, both groups had similar ovulation (80.8 vs 77.7 %, NS) and excessive response rates (12.5 vs 10.6 %, NS). There was no significant difference in on-going pregnancy rates (26.9 vs 20 % per initiated cycle, NS), as well as in miscarriage, multiple pregnancy or biochemical pregnancy rates. CONCLUSION: Pulsatile GnRH seems to be a successful and safe method for ovulation induction in “FHA-PCOM” patients. If results were confirmed by prospective studies, GnRH therapy could therefore become a first-line treatment for this specific population, just as it is for women with FHA without PCOM

Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of follitropin delta, a new human recombinant FSH with individualized dosing based on serum antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and body weight, with conventional follitropin alfa dosing for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF. Design Randomized, multicenter, assessor-blinded, noninferiority trial (ESTHER-1). Setting Reproductive medicine clinics. Patient(s) A total of 1,329 women (aged 18â40 years). Intervention(s) Follitropin delta (AMH <15 pmol/L: 12 μg/d; AMH â¥15 pmol/L: 0.10â0.19 μg/kg/d; maximum 12 μg/d), or follitropin alfa (150 IU/d for 5 days, potential subsequent dose adjustments; maximum 450 IU/d). Main Outcomes Measure(s) Ongoing pregnancy and ongoing implantation rates; noninferiority margins â8.0%. Result(s) Ongoing pregnancy (30.7% vs. 31.6%; difference â0.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) â5.9% to 4.1%]), ongoing implantation (35.2% vs. 35.8%; â0.6% [95% CI â6.1% to 4.8%]), and live birth (29.8% vs. 30.7%; â0.9% [95% CI â5.8% to 4.0%]) rates were similar for individualized follitropin delta and conventional follitropin alfa. Individualized follitropin delta resulted in more women with target response (8â14 oocytes) (43.3% vs. 38.4%), fewer poor responses (fewer than four oocytes in patients with AMH <15 pmol/L) (11.8% vs. 17.9%), fewer excessive responses (â¥15 or â¥20 oocytes in patients with AMH â¥15 pmol/L) (27.9% vs. 35.1% and 10.1% vs. 15.6%, respectively), and fewer measures taken to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (2.3% vs. 4.5%), despite similar oocyte yield (10.0 ± 5.6 vs. 10.4 ± 6.5) and similar blastocyst numbers (3.3 ± 2.8 vs. 3.5 ± 3.2), and less gonadotropin use (90.0 ± 25.3 vs. 103.7 ± 33.6 μg). Conclusion(s) Optimizing ovarian response in IVF by individualized dosing according to pretreatment patient characteristics results in similar efficacy and improved safety compared with conventional ovarian stimulation. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT01956110

Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome

Study Question What is the recommended assessment and management of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and consumer preference? Summary Answer International evidence-based guidelines including 166 recommendations and practice points, addressed prioritized questions to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes of women with PCOS. What Is Known Already Previous guidelines either lacked rigorous evidence-based processes, did not engage consumer and international multidisciplinary perspectives, or were outdated. Diagnosis of PCOS remains controversial and assessment and management are inconsistent. The needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met and evidence practice gaps persist. Study Design, Size, Duration International evidence-based guideline development engaged professional societies and consumer organizations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II-compliant processes were followed, with extensive evidence synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Governance included a six continent international advisory and a project board, five guideline development groups, and consumer and translation committees. Extensive health professional and consumer engagement informed guideline scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included pediatrics, endocrinology, gynecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis, and translation experts. Thirty-seven societies and organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty face-to-face meetings over 15 months addressed 60 prioritized clinical questions involving 40 systematic and 20 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus voting within the five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, with final recommendations approved across all panels. Main Results and the Role of Chance The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS is generally of low to moderate quality. The guideline provides 31 evidence based recommendations, 59 clinical consensus recommendations and 76 clinical practice points all related to assessment and management of PCOS. Key changes in this guideline include: i) considerable refinement of individual diagnostic criteria with a focus on improving accuracy of diagnosis; ii) reducing unnecessary testing; iii) increasing focus on education, lifestyle modification, emotional wellbeing and quality of life; and iv) emphasizing evidence based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. Limitations, Reasons for Caution Overall evidence is generally low to moderate quality, requiring significantly greater research in this neglected, yet common condition, especially around refining specific diagnostic features in PCOS. Regional health system variation is acknowledged and a process for guideline and translation resource adaptation is provided. Wider Implications of the Findings The international guideline for the assessment and management of PCOS provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the guideline with an integrated evaluation program. Study Funding/Competing Interest(S) The guideline was primarily funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) supported by a partnership with ESHRE and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guideline development group members did not receive payment. Travel expenses were covered by the sponsoring organizations. Disclosures of conflicts of interest were declared at the outset and updated throughout the guideline process, aligned with NHMRC guideline processes. Full details of conflicts declared across the guideline development groups are available at https://www.monash.edu/medicine/sphpm/mchri/pcos/guideline in the Register of disclosures of interest. Of named authors, Dr Costello has declared shares in Virtus Health and past sponsorship from Merck Serono for conference presentations. Prof. Laven declared grants from Ferring, Euroscreen and personal fees from Ferring, Euroscreen, Danone and Titus Healthcare. Prof. Norman has declared a minor shareholder interest in an IVF unit. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our partner and collaborating societies and consumer organizations, was independently assessed against AGREEII criteria and underwent methodological review. This guideline was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and was submitted for final approval by the NHMRC

Etude des facteurs prédictifs et du pronostic de la mauvaise réponse ovarienne à la stimulation en fécondation in vitro

LILLE2-BU Santé-Recherche (593502101) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Epigenetics suggests new perspectives for the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome: Transgenerational effect of fetal exposure to Antimüllerian Hormone

International audienc

Le syndrome des ovaires polykystiques (SOPK), une cause d'infertilité (physiopathologie, thérapeutiques médicamenteuses et interventionnelles)

LILLE2-BU Santé-Recherche (593502101) / SudocSudocFranceF