Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Research

A new ovarian response prediction index (ORPI): implications for individualised controlled ovarian stimulation

Authors: Joao Batista A Oliveira, Ricardo LR Baruffi, Claudia G Petersen, Ana L Mauri, Adriana M Nascimento, Laura Vagnini, Juliana Ricci, Mario Cavagna, Jose G Franco Jr

Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The objective was to present a new ovarian response prediction index (ORPI), which was based on anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels, antral follicle count (AFC) and age, and to verify whether it could be a reliable predictor of the ovarian stimulation response.

Methods

A total of 101 patients enrolled in the ICSI programme were included. The ORPI values were calculated by multiplying the AMH level (ng/ml) by the number of antral follicles (2–9 mm), and the result was divided by the age (years) of the patient (ORPI=(AMH x AFC)/Patient age).

Results

The regression analysis demonstrated significant (P<0.0001) positive correlations between the ORPI and the total number of oocytes and of MII oocytes collected. The logistic regression revealed that the ORPI values were significantly associated with the likelihood of pregnancy (odds ratio (OR): 1.86; P=0.006) and collecting greater than or equal to 4 oocytes (OR: 49.25; P<0.0001), greater than or equal to 4 MII oocytes (OR: 6.26; P<0.0001) and greater than or equal to 15 oocytes (OR: 6.10; P<0.0001). Regarding the probability of collecting greater than or equal to 4 oocytes according to the ORPI value, the ROC curve showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 and an efficacy of 88% at a cut-off of 0.2. In relation to the probability of collecting greater than or equal to 4 MII oocytes according to the ORPI value, the ROC curve had an AUC of 0.84 and an efficacy of 81% at a cut-off of 0.3. The ROC curve for the probability of collecting greater than or equal to 15 oocytes resulted in an AUC of 0.89 and an efficacy of 82% at a cut-off of 0.9. Finally, regarding the probability of pregnancy occurrence according to the ORPI value, the ROC curve showed an AUC of 0.74 and an efficacy of 62% at a cut-off of 0.3.

Conclusions

The ORPI exhibited an excellent ability to predict a low ovarian response and a good ability to predict a collection of greater than or equal to 4 MII oocytes, an excessive ovarian response and the occurrence of pregnancy in infertile women. The ORPI might be used to improve the cost-benefit ratio of ovarian stimulation regimens by guiding the selection of medications and by modulating the doses and regimens according to the actual needs of the patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Queenan JT, Whiman-Elia G: An appreciation of modern ART. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000, 43: 942-957. 10.1097/00003081-200012000-00023.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Martinez-Conejero JA, Simon C, Pellicer A, Horcajadas JA: Is ovarian stimulation detrimental to the endometrium?. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007, 15: 45-50.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Liu Y, Lee KF, Ng EH, Yeung WS, Ho PC: Gene expression profiling of human peri-implantation endometria between natural and stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008, 90: 2152-2164. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.020.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Rubio C, Mercader A, Alama P, Lizan C, Rodrigo L, Labarta E, Melo M, Pellicer A, Remohi J: Prospective cohort study in high responder oocyte donors using two hormonal stimulation protocols: impact on embryo aneuploidy and development. Hum Reprod. 2010, 25: 2290-2297. 10.1093/humrep/deq174.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Fauser BC, Diedrich K, Devroey P: Predictors of ovarian response: progress towards individualized treatment in ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod Update. 2008, 14: 1-14.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Ezcurra D: Hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers in controlled ovarian stimulation: tools for matching patients and protocols. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012, 10: 9-10.1186/1477-7827-10-9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
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: 685-718. 10.1093/humupd/dml034.CrossRefPubMed
8.
La Marca A, Papaleo E, Grisendi V, Argento C, Giulini S, Volpe A: Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles. BJOG. 2012, 119: 1171-1179. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03412.x.CrossRefPubMed
9.
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: 602-610. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61053-X.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N: A prospective, comparative analysis of anti-Mullerian hormone, inhibin-B, and three-dimensional ultrasound determinants of ovarian reserve in the prediction of poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010, 93: 855-864. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.042.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Yovich J, Stanger J, Hinchliffe P: Targeted gonadotrophin stimulation using the PIVET algorithm markedly reduces the risk of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012, 24: 281-292. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.11.014.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Chang MY, Chiang CH, Chiu TH, Hsieh TT, Soong YK: The antral follicle count predicts the outcome of pregnancy in a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation/intrauterine insemination program. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998, 15: 12-17. 10.1023/A:1022518103368.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Bancsi LF, Te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ: Antral follicle count in the prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating hormone level. Fertil Steril. 2005, 83: 291-301. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.011.CrossRefPubMed
14.
La Marca A, Broekmans FJ, Volpe A, Fauser BC, Macklon NS: Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): what do we still need to know?. Hum Reprod. 2009, 24: 2264-2275. 10.1093/humrep/dep210.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Nelson SM, La Marca A: The journey from the old to the new AMH assay: how to avoid getting lost in the values. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011, 23: 411-420. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.06.011.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Nelson SM, Anderson RA, Broekmans FJ, Raine-Fenning N, Fleming R, La Marca A: Anti-Mullerian hormone: clairvoyance or crystal clear?. Hum Reprod. 2012, 27: 631-636. 10.1093/humrep/der446.CrossRefPubMed
17.
ASRM: Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012, 98: 302-307.CrossRef
18.
Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ: The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009, 91: 705-714. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.013.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Broer SL, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ: AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011, 17: 46-54. 10.1093/humupd/dmq034.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Muttukrishna S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM, Serhal P: Antral follicle count, anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology?. BJOG. 2005, 112: 1384-1390. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00670.x.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Maheshwari A, Fowler P, Bhattacharya S: Assessment of ovarian reserve–should we perform tests of ovarian reserve routinely?. Hum Reprod. 2006, 21: 2729-2735. 10.1093/humrep/del188.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Younis JS, Jadaon J, Izhaki I, Haddad S, Radin O, Bar-Ami S, Ben-Ami M: A simple multivariate score could predict ovarian reserve, as well as pregnancy rate, in infertile women. Fertil Steril. 2010, 94: 655-661. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.036.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Franco JG, Baruffi RL, Oliveira JB, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Contart P, Felipe V: Effects of recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during induced ovarian stimulation in the GnRH-agonist protocol: a matched case–control study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009, 7: 58-10.1186/1477-7827-7-58.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
24.
Spencer JB, Browne AS, Copland SD, Session DR: Discontinuation of rLH two days before hCG may increase the number of oocytes retrieved in IVF. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010, 8: 29-10.1186/1477-7827-8-29.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
25.
Buhler KF, Fischer R: Recombinant human LH supplementation versus supplementation with urinary hCG-based LH activity during controlled ovarian stimulation in the long GnRH-agonist protocol: a matched case–control study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012, 28: 345-350. 10.3109/09513590.2011.633128.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Cota AM, Oliveira JB, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Massaro FC, Silva LF, Nicoletti A, Cavagna M, Baruffi RL, Franco JG: GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction cycles: oocyte morphology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012, 10: 33-10.1186/1477-7827-10-33.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
27.
Lavorato HL, Oliveira JB, Petersen CG, Vagnini L, Mauri AL, Cavagna M, Baruffi RL, Franco JG: GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in IVF/ICSI cycles with recombinant LH supplementation DNA fragmentation and apoptosis in granulosa cells. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012, 165: 61-65. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.014.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L: ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011, 26: 1616-1624. 10.1093/humrep/der092.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB: Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. 2000, 73: 667-676. 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00630-5.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Rombauts L, Onwude JL, Chew HW, Vollenhoven BJ: The predictive value of antral follicle count remains unchanged across the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 2011, 96: 1514-1518. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.005.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ng EH, Tang OS, Ho PC: The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian responses in an IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 2000, 15: 1937-1942. 10.1093/humrep/15.9.1937.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G: Basal level of anti-Mullerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod. 2006, 21: 2022-2026. 10.1093/humrep/del127.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Riggs RM, Duran EH, Baker MW, Kimble TD, Hobeika E, Yin L, Matos-Bodden L, Leader B, Stadtmauer L: Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-Mullerian hormone: a comparison of the predictive value of anti-Mullerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, and age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008, 199: 202 e201-208.
34.
Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L: Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Mullerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2–6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009, 26: 319-325. 10.1007/s10815-009-9319-5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
35.
Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinowitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T, Gal M, Zylber-Haran E, Margalioth EJ: Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005, 20: 3178-3183. 10.1093/humrep/dei203.CrossRefPubMed
36.
te Velde ER, Pearson PL: The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2002, 8: 141-154. 10.1093/humupd/8.2.141.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Nikolaou D, Templeton A: Early ovarian ageing: a hypothesis. Detection and clinical relevance. Hum Reprod. 2003, 18: 1137-1139. 10.1093/humrep/deg245.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F: The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2010, 94: 1044-1051. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.040.CrossRefPubMed
39.
La Cour Freiesleben N, Gerds TA, Forman JL, Silver JD, Nyboe Andersen A, Popovic-Todorovic B: Risk charts to identify low and excessive responders among first-cycle IVF/ICSI standard patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011, 22: 50-58. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.08.010.CrossRefPubMed
40.
La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, Stabile G, Volpe A: Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010, 16: 113-130. 10.1093/humupd/dmp036.CrossRefPubMed
41.
van Disseldorp J, Lambalk CB, Kwee J, Looman CW, Eijkemans MJ, Fauser BC, Broekmans FJ: Comparison of inter- and intra-cycle variability of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle counts. Hum Reprod. 2010, 25: 221-227. 10.1093/humrep/dep366.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Fanchin R, Schonauer LM, Righini C, Guibourdenche J, Frydman R, Taieb J: Serum anti-Mullerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular status than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3. Hum Reprod. 2003, 18: 323-327. 10.1093/humrep/deg042.CrossRefPubMed
43.
La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, Volpe A: Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2006, 21: 3103-3107. 10.1093/humrep/del291.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Tsepelidis S, Devreker F, Demeestere I, Flahaut A, Gervy C, Englert Y: Stable serum levels of anti-Mullerian hormone during the menstrual cycle: a prospective study in normo-ovulatory women. Hum Reprod. 2007, 22: 1837-1840. 10.1093/humrep/dem101.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wunder DM, Bersinger NA, Yared M, Kretschmer R, Birkhauser MH: Statistically significant changes of antimullerian hormone and inhibin levels during the physiologic menstrual cycle in reproductive age women. Fertil Steril. 2008, 89: 927-933. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.04.054.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, Jamieson M, Traynor I, Gaudoin M, Mitchell P, Ambrose P, Fleming R: Anti-Mullerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2009, 24: 867-875.CrossRefPubMed
47.
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: 2414-2421. 10.1093/humrep/dem204.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Yates AP, Rustamov O, Roberts SA, Lim HY, Pemberton PW, Smith A, Nardo LG: Anti-Mullerian hormone-tailored stimulation protocols improve outcomes whilst reducing adverse effects and costs of IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011, 26: 2353-2362. 10.1093/humrep/der182.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Wang JG, Douglas NC, Nakhuda GS, Choi JM, Park SJ, Thornton MH, Guarnaccia MM, Sauer MV: The association between anti-Mullerian hormone and IVF pregnancy outcomes is influenced by age. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010, 21: 757-761. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.06.041.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Nakhuda GS, Douglas NC, Thornton MH, Guarnaccia MM, Lobo R, Sauer MV: Anti-Mullerian hormone testing is useful for individualization of stimulation protocols in oocyte donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010, 20: 42-47. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.10.009.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Gallot V, Berwanger Da Silva AL, Genro V, Grynberg M, Frydman N, Fanchin R: Antral follicle responsiveness to follicle-stimulating hormone administration assessed by the Follicular Output RaTe (FORT) may predict in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome. Hum Reprod. 2012, 27: 1066-1072. 10.1093/humrep/der479.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Biasoni V, Patriarca A, Dalmasso P, Bertagna A, Manieri C, Benedetto C, Revelli A: Ovarian sensitivity index is strongly related to circulating AMH and may be used to predict ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins in IVF. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011, 9: 112-10.1186/1477-7827-9-112.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
53.
Aboulghar M: Symposium: Update on prediction and management of OHSS. Prevention of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009, 19: 33-42. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60043-0.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A new ovarian response prediction index (ORPI): implications for individualised controlled ovarian stimulation
Authors
Joao Batista A Oliveira
Ricardo LR Baruffi
Claudia G Petersen
Ana L Mauri
Adriana M Nascimento
Laura Vagnini
Juliana Ricci
Mario Cavagna
Jose G Franco Jr
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7827
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-94

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1/2012 Go to the issue

Research

Addition of low dose hCG to rFSh benefits older women during ovarian stimulation for IVF

Research

Improvement of ovarian response and oocyte quality of aged female by administration of bone morphogenetic protein-6 in a mouse model

Research

The FSH-inhibin axis in prader-willi syndrome: heterogeneity of gonadal dysfunction

Research

Quantitative ELISAs for serum soluble LHCGR and hCG-LHCGR complex: potential diagnostics in first trimester pregnancy screening for stillbirth, Down’s syndrome, preterm delivery and preeclampsia

Research

Estrous cycle-dependent changes of Fas expression in the bovine corpus luteum: influence of keratin 8/18 intermediate filaments and cytokines

Research

Increased expression of kisspeptin and GnRH forms in the brain of scombroid fish during final ovarian maturation and ovulation