Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Ovarian Sensitivity Index (OSI): Validating the Use of a Marker for Ovarian Responsiveness in IVF

Authors
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AIIMS, New Delhi, India
Abstract
Background: In this study, an attempt was made to validate the use of OSI as a measure of ovarian response during IVF treatment and to correlate OSI with age and BMI and other measures of ovarian response such as AMH, antral follicle count (AFC), total dose of administered gonadotrophins, and duration of stimulation. Methods: This study was a retrospective comparative cohort one. The study included a total of 2150 women who underwent the first IVF cycle between January 2008 and December 2017 at our center using long-agonist protocol. Patients were divided into four subgroups according to the circulating AMH level: below the 25th percentile (AMH 0.25-1.1 ng/ml, subgroup A), between 25th and 50th percentiles (AMH 1.2-1.6 ng/ml, subgroup B), between the 50th and 75th percentiles (AMH1.7-2.6 ng/ml, subgroup C), and above the 75th percentile (AMH 2.7-8.5 ng/ml, subgroup D). Qualitative data were analyzed by Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. The p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The four subgroups formed on the basis of the AMH level did not significantly differ for age, BMI and infertility duration. OSI was significantly correlated to age (r=0.167; p=0.001), and has negative correlation with AFC (r=-0.236, p=0.001) and AMH levels (r=-0.123, p=0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis was done on OSI with other independent variables such as age, BMI, AFC, AMH. Analysis showed that approximately 8% variation in the value of OSI can be attributed to these variables with the highest correlation with antral follicle count. Conclusion: The present study showed that OSI appears to be a highly reliable index of ovarian responsiveness to recombinant FSH and can be useful to estimate the FSH dose.
Keywords

  1. Fauser BC, Devroey P, Macklon NS. Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment. Lancet. 2005;365(9473):1807-16.
  2. Briggs R, Kovacs G, Mac Lachlan V, Motteram C, Baker HW. Can you ever collect too many oocytes? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(1):81-7.
  3. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1768-74.
  4. Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):370-6.
  5. 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.
  6. de Carvalho BR, Rosa e Silva AC, Rosa e Silva JC, dos Reis RM, Ferriani RA, Silva de Sa MF. Ovarian reserve evaluation: state of the art. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25(7):311-22.
  7. Polyzos NP, Devroey P. A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Fertil Steril. 2011;96(5):1058-61.e7.
  8. Poseidon Group (Patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number), Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1452-3.
  9. Patrizio P, Vaiarelli A, Levi Setti PE, Tobler KJ, Shoham G, Leong M, et al. How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(6):581-92.
  10. Biasoni V, Patriarca A, Dalmasso P, Bertagna A, Manieri C, Benedetto C, et al. 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.
  11. Ledger WL. Clinical utility of measurement of anti-mullerian hormone in reproductive endocrinology. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95(12):5144-54.
  12. La Marca A, Nelson SM, Sighinolfi G, Manno M, Baraldi E, Roli L, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone based prediction model for a live birth in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22(4):341-9.
  13. 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.
  14. Hehenkamp WJ, Looman CW, Themmen AP, de Jong FH, Te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ. Anti-Müllerian hormone levels in the spontaneous menstrual cycle do not show substantial fluctuation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(10):4057-63.
  15. 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(1):46-54.
  16. Anckaert E, Smitz J, Schiettecatte J, Klein BM, Arce JC. The value of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in the long GnRH agonist protocol: association with ovarian response and gonadotrophin-dose adjustments. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(6):1829-39.
  17. Li HWR, Lee VCY, Ho PC, Ng EHY. Ovarian sensitivity index is a better measure of ovarian responsiveness to gonadotrophin stimulation than the number of oocytes during in-vitro fertilization treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(2):199-203.