The effect of COVID-19 infection on anti mullerian hormone

MADENLİ>, Asena AYAR; GÜRKAN, Naziye; Tosun, Şebnem Alanya

doi:10.38053/acmj.1167530

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Herrero et al [6] showed that patients with higher IgG levels against SARS-CoV-2 had lower numbers of retrieved oocytes. Madenli et al [10] showed that 3 months after COVID-19 infection, AMH levels had decreased and menstrual cycle irregularity had increased. In a study by Li et al [11], mean sex hormone levels and ovarian reserve were not altered significantly, while menstrual changes such as a smaller volume of vaginal bleeding or a prolonged cycle were reported in 20% of patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of female reproductive performance with assisted reproductive techniques after recent mild to moderate COVID-19 infections: An observational study

Moini,

Najafpour,

Kashani

et al. 2024

Clin Exp Reprod Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients.Methods: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF).Results: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the control groups.Conclusion: PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%