Abstract
A prospective longitudinal cohort study aimed to longitudinally examine the kinetics of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. Pregnant women with stored first-trimester serum samples were recruited at 24–28 weeks gestation during their gestational diabetes testing, where they provided an additional serum sample. The samples were analysed for AMH, oestradiol and progesterone concentrations. A decrease in serum AMH was observed in 40 out of 45 (88.9%) (95% CI: 75.9–96.3%) of the participants in this study. The median serum AMH concentration was 10.9 pmol/L in the first trimester and 6.5 pmol/L during the second trimester, with a significantly different distribution of the values between the first-trimester and the second-trimester AMH samples (P < 0.001). The median percentage of AMH difference of −39.8%. This study demonstrated a significant decrease in serum AMH levels from the first to the second trimester of pregnancy. The absolute decrease in AMH levels seems to be positively associated with first-trimester AMH levels, whereas the percentage of AMH difference is not. Further studies are required to elucidate the potential physiological mechanisms of this finding.
Lay summary
Anti-Müllerian hormone, also known as AMH, is produced by developing ovarian follicles in the ovary. The concentration of AMH in the serum is used as a marker of ovarian reserve. This marker has been shown to vary throughout the menstrual cycle and in women using hormonal contraception. This study examined this marker in women in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy to determine if it is variable throughout pregnancy. The study found that there was a significant decrease from the first to second trimester, with a larger decrease seen in women who had a higher first-trimester concentration of this marker. Further research is required to determine the physiological mechanism which causes the reduction of AMH in pregnancy.
Introduction
Anti−müllerian hormone, also known as AMH, is produced by small antral and pre-antral follicles. It is secreted into the follicular fluid and into the circulation, where it can be measured (Durlinger et al. 2002a,b). It has been shown to inhibit excess recruitment of primordial follicles by reducing responsiveness to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), thereby selecting the dominant follicle (Peluso et al. 2014).
As AMH in the female is only produced by developing pre-antral and antral follicles, it has been postulated that it serves as a marker of ovarian activity. Further, serum AMH has been shown to correlate with the size of the ovarian follicular pool, leading to its widespread adoption as a surrogate marker of ovarian reserve (de Vet et al. 2002, Van Rooij et al. 2002, Visser et al. 2006, Kwee et al. 2008).
The serum concentration of AMH was initially thought to remain stable throughout the menstrual cycle (Hehenkamp et al. 2006, La Marca et al. 2006, Tsepelidis et al. 2007); however, recent research suggests that serum AMH can have significant fluctuations throughout the menstrual cycle with an intracycle variation of up to 20.7% (La Marca et al. 2009, Dewailly et al. 2014, Gnoth et al. 2015, Lambert-Messerlian et al. 2016, Moolhuijsen & Visser 2020). AMH has also been shown to be impacted by hormonal contraception (HC), with HC use longer than 6 months associated with a decline in serum AMH with recovery after discontinuation of HC (Amer et al. 2020).
A recent systematic review demonstrated an association between reduced serum AMH concentration and advancing gestational age, with a post-partum return to pre-pregnancy AMH levels (McCredie et al. 2017). However, the majority of evidence regarding AMH in pregnancy is based on cross-sectional studies (La Marca et al. 2005, Li et al. 2010, Plante et al. 2010, Santillan et al. 2012, Stegmann et al. 2015), with only a few studies longitudinally examining serum AMH fluctuations in early pregnancy (Nelson et al. 2010, Koninger et al. 2013, Pankhurst et al. 2016, Freeman et al. 2018), eliminating the problems of significant inter-individual variability in serum AMH seen in cross-sectional studies (Overbeek et al. 2012, La Marca et al. 2013). As such, the objective of this study is to describe the kinetics of AMH during pregnancy by comparing two measurements from the same patient during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.
Materials and methods
Study design
A prospective longitudinal cohort study was carried out between September 2016 and November 2020 at the Royal Hospital for Women (RHW), Randwick, Australia. The study was approved by the SESLHD Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref number 16-113) and written informed consent was provided by each participant.
Study population
Women were considered eligible for this study if they carried a singleton pregnancy, were scheduled to undergo a routine oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24–28 weeks of gestation, at the South Eastern Area Laboratory services (SEALS), and had a stored first-trimester sample available at the RHW from 11 to 13 weeks and 6 days of gestation in this pregnancy. This stored sample would have been obtained as part of the routine first-trimester antenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities of the fetus, and it is standard procedure at the RHW for this serum to be frozen and stored for up to 18 months. Women were excluded if they had known polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), diabetes or multiple pregnancies.
All pregnant women are routinely screened for gestational diabetes with OGTT at 24–28 weeks of gestation. Women with stored first-trimester samples and upcoming OGTT appointments at SEALS were identified and screened to determine eligibility. Eligible women were approached, and after signed informed consent was obtained, they were recruited for this study. Subsequently, these women were also asked to provide demographic and medical information through a questionnaire.
Data collection
During the blood collection for the OGTT, an additional 2 mL of blood was drawn into a separate tube. Serum was separated using a Hettich EBA 20 centrifuge at 2404 g for 10 min and stored at −20°C with its paired first-trimester serum sample, to be analysed at a later stage.
The samples were analysed for AMH, oestradiol and progesterone concentrations, using a Roche e411 analyser. This analyser, with the AMH plus assay, has a lower limit of detection (LLD) of 0.071 pmol/L for AMH, and repeatability and intermediate precision of ≤1.8 and ≤4.4% CV respectively. The LLD of oestradiol is 18.4 pmol/L and 0.159 nmol/L for progesterone.
Demographic and pregnancy-related medical data about the subjects were retrieved using a questionnaire and from their hospital medical file, which contained details of antenatal appointments and previous admissions.
Sample size
Originally a sample size of 100 patients had been calculated for this study to be sufficiently powered to detect a mean difference between the two measurements of 2.5pmol/L with an s.d. of this difference equal to 8 when using a paired Student's t-test and an alpha = 0.05 and a beta = 0.10. However, the study was terminated after 5 years of recruitment with a total sample size of 45, due to slow recruitment, as fewer patients were opting for first-trimester antenatal serum screening given the availability of non-invasive prenatal testing. Additionally, the final sample size available for analysis was impacted by the loss of biological samples in the laboratory during the storage period (Fig. 1).
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to provide information about the distribution of the values in the variables assessed. Measures of central tendency (including mean or median) and scatter (s.d. or interquartile range (IQR)) were calculated depending on the normality of the distribution of each variable.
Differences between outcomes were calculated, with the absolute difference in outcome levels defined as second-trimester level minus first-trimester level, where a negative value indicated a decrease in the value from first to second trimester. The percentage of outcome difference was defined as the absolute outcome difference divided by first-trimester level, multiplied by 100.
The comparison of the two AMH measurements for each subject was performed using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. The association of age, body mass index (BMI), weight, gestational age, first- and second-trimester serum AMH, oestradiol, and progesterone with the observed AMH difference was explored using a Spearman’s rank correlation. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was then used to assess the difference in absolute AMH decrease and percentage AMH difference by categorical demographic variables including fetal gender, cycle regularity, and use of assisted conception. Furthermore, regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of first-trimester AMH and gestational age with the AMH difference and percentage of AMH difference, whilst controlling for important covariates. STATA 17.0 (StataCorp LP) statistical software was used for this analysis.
Results
Participant demographics
The pre-pregnancy characteristics of the included population are presented in Table 1. The age of participants ranged from 25 to 39 years with a median of 34.5 years. The menstrual cycle length in this cohort ranged from 18 to 32 days, with a median of 28 days and menstrual cycles were regular in 75.6% of women. HC had been used in the preceding 12 months by 13 women, whilst 2 women had used assisted conception for this pregnancy.
Pre-pregnancy characteristics of the participants.
| Median (range)* | IQR | Frequency | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 34.5 (25–39) | 31.8–36.9 | ||
| Time to pregnancy (months) | 1 (0–24) | 0.5–4.0 | ||
| Average menstrual cycle length (days) | 28 (18–90) | 27 - 27 | ||
| Previous pregnancies1 | 1 (0–6) | |||
| None | 13 | |||
| 1 previous | 17 | |||
| ≥2 previous | 12 | |||
| Previous births1 | 1 (0–4) | |||
| None | 16 | |||
| 1 previous | 23 | |||
| ≥2 previous | 3 | |||
| Previous miscarriages1 | 1 (0–5) | |||
| None | 34 | |||
| 1 previous | 7 | |||
| ≥2 previous | 1 | |||
| Previous terminations1 | 0 (0–3) | |||
| None | 38 | |||
| 1 previous | 2 | |||
| ≥2 previous | 2 | |||
| Menstrual cycle2 | ||||
| Regular | 31 | 68.9 | ||
| Irregular | 10 | 22.2 | ||
| Hormonal contraception use in the prior 12 months2 | ||||
| No | 28 | 62.2 | ||
| Yes | 13 | 28.9 | ||
| History of infertility2 | ||||
| No | 38 | 84.4 | ||
| Yes | 3 | 6.7 | ||
| Assisted conception1 | ||||
| No | 40 | 88.9 | ||
| Yes | 2 | 4.4 | ||
| Smoking1 | ||||
| No | 41 | 91.1 | ||
| Yes | 1 | 2.2 | ||
| Alcohol consumption1 | ||||
| No | 40 | 88.9 | ||
| Yes | 2 | 4.4 | ||
| Use of illicit drugs1 | ||||
| No | 42 | 93.3 | ||
| Yes | 0 | 0 | ||
*Range is minimum to maximum; 1relevant information not provided by three patients; 2relevant information not provided by four patients.
IQR, interquartile range.
Apart from one woman who had hypothyroidism under treatment, one woman who had a history of endometriosis with previous ovarian surgery and one woman who had experienced antepartum bleeding, this was a healthy cohort with no presence of preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, kidney disease, autoimmune disease or history of chemotherapy or radiotherapy of the pelvis prior to their second-trimester sampling.
Longitudinal assessment of serum hormonal levels during pregnancy
Two serum measurements were performed during each woman’s pregnancy. The first at a median of 84 days gestational age (range: 77–97 days) and the second at a median of 191 days gestational age (range: 171–205 days).
Kinetics of AMH
The median first-trimester serum AMH concentration was 10.9 pmol/L, while this median was 6.5 pmol/L during the second trimester (Fig. 2).
Box plot of AMH levels in first and second trimesters.
Citation: Reproduction and Fertility 4, 2; 10.1530/RAF-22-0128
A decrease in serum AMH was observed in 40 out of 45 (88.9%) (95% confidence interval (CI) 75.9–96.3%) of the participants in this study (Fig. 3). The median of the differences between the first- and second-trimester AMH concentration was −4.2 pmol/L. The median of the percentage of AMH difference was −39.8%. The distribution of the values between the first- and the second-trimester AMH samples was significantly different (P < 0.001). The distribution of AMH percentage difference is displayed in Fig. 4.
AMH levels by gestational age.
Citation: Reproduction and Fertility 4, 2; 10.1530/RAF-22-0128
Distribution of percentage of AMH difference.
Citation: Reproduction and Fertility 4, 2; 10.1530/RAF-22-0128
Kinetics of oestradiol and progesterone
The kinetics of oestradiol and progesterone between first and second trimester are presented in Table 2.
Hormonal monitoring during pregnancy.
| n | Range | Median* | IQR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gestational age at first serum measurement, during first trimester (days) | 45 | 77–97 | 84 | 81–88 |
| Gestational age at second serum measurement, during second trimester (days) | 45 | 171–205 | 191 | 186–195 |
| Difference in gestational age between first and second trimester (days) | 45 | 74–124 | 107 | 101–112 |
| AMH first trimester (pmol/L) | 45 | 1.4–33.6 | 10.9 | 7.5–16.0 |
| AMH second trimester (pmol/L) | 45 | 0.1–21.57 | 6.5 | 4.0–12.4 |
| AMH difference (pmol/L) | 45 | −19.2 to 3.47 | −4.2 | −7.71 to −1.9 |
| Percentage of AMH difference (%) | 45 | −98.77 to 36.81 | −39.81 | −55.6 to −23.7 |
| Oestradiol first trimester (pmol/L) | 38 | 3553–16,925 | 7886 | 6431 to 9251 |
| Oestradiol second trimester (pmol/L) | 38 | 5630–87,490 | 44,745 | 31,195–52,285 |
| Oestradiol difference (pmol/L) | 38 | 62–73,240 | 35,557 | 24,808–44,214 |
| Percentage of oestradiol difference (%) | 38 | 1.11–830.93 | 439.08 | 313.58–583.60 |
| Progesterone first trimester (nmol/L) | 37 | 48.7–217.8 | 92.6 | 73.9–125.5 |
| Progesterone second trimester (nmol/L) | 37 | 162.5–474.2 | 219 | 183.0–263.1 |
| Progesterone difference (nmol/L) | 37 | 28.5–290.1 | 125.2 | 95.85–160.0 |
| Percentage of progesterone difference (%) | 37 | 0–336.70 | 133.20 | 89.96–226.24 |
*A negative value signals a decrease in the level from the first to second trimester.
IQR, interquartile range.
Predictors of the magnitude of AMH difference
When evaluated with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, there was no statistically significant association of mean absolute AMH difference or mean percentage AMH difference, respectively, with fetal gender (P = 0.78 and P = 0.92), cycle regularity (P = 0.94 and P = 0.15), use of HC in the preceding 12 months (P = 0.36 and P = 0.48), use of assisted contraception (P = 0.13 and P = 0.68) and history of infertility (P = 0.26 and P = 0.52).
Absolute AMH difference
The absolute AMH difference (pmol/L) was found to be significantly associated with the first-trimester AMH measurement (rs = −0.67, P < 0.001), first-trimester weight (rs = 0.48, P < 0.003) and second-trimester weight (rs = 0.43, P < 0.005). No other statistically significant associations were observed (Table 3).
Spearman correlations of AMH difference (second trimester − first trimester) with other variables.
| n | AMH difference (pmol/L) | AMH % difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spearman’s rho | P value | Spearman’s rho | P value | ||
| Age (years) | 45 | 0.09 | 0.550 | −0.04 | 0.773 |
| First-trimester AMH level (pmol/L) | 45 | −0.67 | <0.001 | −0.12 | 0.436 |
| GA at first AMH measurement (days) | 45 | 0.25 | 0.093 | 0.13 | 0.395 |
| GA at second AMH measurement (days) | 45 | −0.09 | 0.54 | -0.18 | 0.230 |
| Difference in GA between measurements (days) | 45 | −0.26 | 0.12 | −0.21 | 0.161 |
| First-trimester weight (kg) | 41 | 0.48 | <0.003 | 0.27 | 0.100 |
| Second-trimester weight (kg) | 41 | 0.43 | <0.005 | 0.30 | 0.053 |
| Weight difference between first and second trimester | 37 | 0.02 | 0.90 | −0.08 | 0.644 |
| Weight percentage difference (%) | 37 | −0.25 | 0.13 | −0.15 | 0.367 |
| First-trimester BMI (kg/m2) | 41 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.186 |
| Second-trimester BMI (kg/m2) | 41 | 0.24 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.162 |
| BMI difference between first and second trimester | 37 | −0.16 | 0.34 | −0.20 | 0.234 |
| Oestradiol first trimester (pmol/L) | 38 | −0.12 | 0.46 | 0.19 | 0.251 |
| Oestradiol second trimester (pmol/L) | 38 | −0.16 | 0.33 | 0.09 | 0.600 |
| Oestradiol difference (pmol/L)† | 38 | −0.15 | 0.34 | 0.04 | 0.812 |
| Percentage of oestradiol difference (%)* | 38 | −0.0262 | 0.88 | 0.01 | 0.933 |
| Progesterone first trimester (nmol/L) | 37 | 0.1221 | 0.47 | 0.23 | 0.165 |
| Progesterone second trimester (nmol/L) | 37 | 0.0557 | 0.74 | 0.11 | 0.503 |
| Progesterone difference (nmol/L)† | 36 | −0.0780 | 0.65 | −0.13 | 0.464 |
| Percentage of progesterone difference (%)* | 36 | −0.0489 | 0.78 | −0.15 | 0.397 |
| Time to pregnancy (months) | 38 | −0.1034 | 0.54 | 0.07 | 0.682 |
| Previous pregnancies | 42 | −0.0059 | 0.97 | −0.30 | 0.054 |
| Previous births | 42 | 0.1300 | 0.41 | −0.11 | 0.485 |
*Difference/first trimester value; †Second trimester − first trimester.
GA, gestational age.
A multivariate analysis was performed to control for potential confounding factors including the difference in gestational age, weight difference and second-trimester oestradiol levels, following which the only strong predictors of AMH difference were first-trimester AMH with a coefficient of −0.47 (95% CI −0.62 to −0.32) and the difference in gestational age between serum measurements, with a coefficient of −0.14 (95% CI −0.26 to −0.21).
Percentage of AMH difference
None of the baseline characteristics or hormone levels demonstrated a significant correlation with AMH percentage difference. The strongest correlation was observed with second-trimester weight (rs = 0.30, P = 0.053); however, this was not statistically significant. There was no significant correlation with any of the other variables tested (Table 3).
When the multivariate analysis was performed to control for difference in gestational age, weight difference and second-trimester oestradiol levels, the only statistically significant predictor of AMH percentage difference was the difference in gestational age with a coefficient of −1.14 (CI −2.09 to −0.19).
Discussion
This study demonstrates a significant reduction in serum AMH from the first to second trimester of pregnancy, with a decrease in AMH seen in 88.9% of patients. The magnitude of this decrease in AMH was variable but was greater than 20.0% in 77.8% of patients.
The present study represents the second largest study available exploring this question by employing a longitudinal design. The kinetics of AMH between the first and second trimesters of pregnancy have been evaluated by four other longitudinal studies, which also found a decrease in AMH during pregnancy (Nelson et al. 2010, Koninger et al. 2013, Pankhurst et al. 2016, Freeman et al. 2018). The median AMH percentage decrease in these studies varied from 13.5 to 35.9% from the first to the second trimester, consistent with our finding of a median 39.8% decrease during this period. One longitudinal study of 30 women took serial AMH measurements at five time points throughout pregnancy demonstrating decreasing AMH with increasing gestation, with the largest decline in the first trimester between 7 and 14 weeks gestation (Freeman et al. 2018). This finding may suggest that the initial steep decline in AMH levels had already begun for women in our cohort whose first AMH measurement was taken at 10–13 weeks gestation.
Some studies have longitudinally evaluated serum AMH levels from the first to the third trimester of pregnancy, with AMH levels declining by up to 64.9% over this time, implying that AMH continues to decline into the third trimester (Nelson et al. 2010, Villarroel et al. 2018, Pankhurst et al. 2021). Unfortunately, this could not be ascertained in our study.
This research question has also been evaluated by cross-sectional studies (La Marca et al. 2005, Li et al. 2010, Plante et al. 2010, Santillan et al. 2012, Koninger et al. 2013, Gerli et al. 2015, Stegmann et al. 2015), with all but one (La Marca et al. 2005) finding a decrease in serum AMH from the first to the second trimester. Cross-sectional studies are inherently limited compared to longitudinal studies, as they cannot account for inter-individual variation and potential confounding factors. For example, significantly different maternal ages between the cohorts for each trimester would confound the results due to the known association between increased age and decreased serum AMH (Dewailly et al. 2014). Other potentially confounding factors include BMI, smoking status and history of infertility (La Marca et al. 2013, Jaswa et al. 2020).
In the current study, we also calculated the absolute AMH difference between first and second trimesters, and we observed that the higher the first-trimester AMH, the more pronounced the absolute decrease. Interestingly, the percentage of AMH decrease was not associated with the initial AMH level. The fact that the absolute but not relative magnitude of AMH decline correlated with the initial AMH level probably reflects a general mathematical rule no matter whether the AMH kinetic throughout pregnancy follows a first, second or higher order kinetics. However, this cannot be elucidated from the current study and further works on it are needed to provide an answer regarding the exact kinetic profile of AMH throughout human pregnancy. The percentage decrease in AMH between first and second trimesters was found to be up to 98.8% which signifies that the difference between the first- and second-trimester concentrations can be substantial. Nonetheless, the IQR of this measure was 28.2%, indicating a significant variability in inter-individual AMH fluctuations, the exact physiological mechanism of which is currently unknown.
It has been previously suggested that the absolute difference in AMH levels between the first and second trimester is dependent on the woman’s age, with one study finding that there was only a significant difference in AMH levels between different trimesters in women ≤ 34 years (Koninger et al. 2013). Although this may be compatible with our findings on the effect of baseline AMH on absolute AMH difference (as younger women tend to have higher AMH), we were unable to find an association between age and AMH decrease. In this study, there was no significant difference in the absolute AMH difference in women ≤ 34 years and women > 34 years (P = 0.792), which could be due to the relatively older population in our study (median age of 34.5 years with IQR 31.8–36.9).
Nelson et al. (2010) found that AMH was negatively associated with measures of peripheral maternal adiposity and early pregnancy BMI. There was indirect evidence in our study in agreement with this finding, with the demonstration of an association between first-trimester weight and AMH difference. None of the other studies has evaluated this association between weight or maternal adiposity and AMH decrease.
One of the proposed theories regarding the physiological origins of AMH reduction during pregnancy is that it may be due to the elevated oestradiol in pregnancy which suppress follicular recruitment. However, this was not confirmed by the findings of this study as there was no association between serum oestradiol or difference in oestradiol and the difference in AMH between first and second trimesters. It is possible that elevated placental steroids, including oestradiol, suppress the pituitary secretion of FSH in pregnancy (Foyouzi et al. 2004), which in turn suppresses the development of the small antral follicles with a subsequent reduction in AMH secretion (Vegetti & Alagna 2006, Dewailly et al. 2014). As this is an indirect effect via the pituitary, this might explain why a clear correlation between serum oestradiol and AMH was not detected.
Another proposed theory is that the reduced circulating AMH may be consistent with the natural haemodilution which occurs during the second trimester of pregnancy (La Marca et al. 2013), with plasma volume increasing by 29% at the end of second trimester and 48% by the late third trimester (Aguree & Gernand 2019). Pankhurst et al. (2016) examined this theory by longitudinally examining the haematocrit during pregnancy, which decreased by a mean of 7.6% from the first to the third trimester but was not correlated with the decrease in AMH during the same period.
A strength of this study, apart from its prospective nature and the longitudinal design, is the use of a contemporary automated AMH assay which has been shown to be sensitive and reliable (Gassner & Jung 2014, Anckaert et al. 2016). The samples were also taken within a narrow window of 20 days for the first-trimester measurement and 34 days for the second-trimester measurement, therefore limiting the potential variability originating from differences in gestational age. The study population had limited heterogeneity as participants with PCOS or diabetes were excluded from this study, to make the data less susceptible to the effects of extreme outliers (Kim et al. 2016, Al Khafaji et al. 2017, Teede et al. 2019, Verdiesen et al. 2021, Bhattacharya et al. 2022). As such, these results cannot be generalised to women with PCOS or diabetes.
The main limitation of our study is that the predetermined sample size was not reached due to logistical reasons, nevertheless, the primary research question of determining whether there is an AMH difference between the first and second trimester of pregnancy was still answered, and a statistically significant reduction was demonstrated. A post hoc power analysis revealed that our study’s sample size would have a statistical power of 53.6% to detect the originally hypothesised difference. However, for the observed AMH difference (mean 5.15 pmol/L, s.d. 4.96 pmol/L), the statistical power was 100%, which is why a statistically significant result was still achieved. Nonetheless, the reduced sample size may have limited the ability to perform subgroup analyses, such as when stratifying by age, presenting a risk of type II error for those calculations. Additionally, some patients did not provide data regarding some of the demographic variables which may have affected our ability to demonstrate statistically significant associations between AMH levels and certain demographic parameters.
The findings of the current study suggest areas for further research to identify the potential physiological mechanisms by which the AMH reduction between first and second trimester of pregnancy occurs. A decrease in the rate of follicular recruitment during pregnancy has been hypothesised (Koninger et al. 2013), which is consistent with histological evidence of reduced follicular maturation in pregnancy (Govan 1970) and with the findings by some epidemiological studies that increased parity is associated with a delay in the onset of menopause (Whelan et al. 1990, Gold et al. 2001). Although, no specific details on the exact underlying mechanism are known, if an effect of pregnancy on the rate of follicular recruitment were to be confirmed, and the physiological mechanism underlying this determined, this may lead to the development of interventions to slow the rate of follicular recruitment outside of pregnancy.
An important clinical implication of the current study is that serum AMH in pregnancy should not be used as a predictor of ovarian reserve, especially using nomograms developed with data from non-pregnant patients.
In conclusion, this prospective longitudinal study demonstrated a significant decrease in serum AMH levels from the first to the second trimester of pregnancy. The absolute decrease in AMH levels seems to be positively associated with first-trimester AMH levels, whereas the percentage of AMH difference is not. Further studies are required to elucidate the potential physiological mechanisms of this finding.
Declaration of interest
There is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.
Funding
This work was supported by the School of Women’s and Children’s Health, UNSW.
Author contribution statement
SM and CV contributed to the design and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript. BA contributed to participant recruitment, data collection and storage or biological samples. MM contributed to study design, storage and analysis of biological samples. WL and CV supervised the study. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final version of the manuscript.
References
Aguree S & & Gernand AD 2019 Plasma volume expansion across healthy pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 19 508. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2619-6)
Al Khafaji MM, Al-Taee HA & & Al-Shaikh SF 2017 Assessment of anti-Mullerian hormone level in reproductive age group women with diabetes mellitus type one. Middle East Fertility Society Journal 22 269–272. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2017.04.004)
Amer SAKS, James C, Al-Hussaini TK & & Mohamed AA 2020 Assessment of circulating anti-Müllerian hormone in women using hormonal contraception: a systematic review. Journal of Women's Health 29 100–110. (https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2019.7733)
Anckaert E, Öktem M, Thies A, Cohen-Bacrie M, Daan NMP, Schiettecatte J, Müller C, Topcu D, Gröning A, Ternaux F et al. 2016 Multicenter analytical performance evaluation of a fully automated anti-Müllerian hormone assay and reference interval determination. Clinical Biochemistry 49 260– 267. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.10.008)
Bhattacharya K, Saha I, Sen D, Bose C, Chaudhuri GR, Dutta S, Sengupta P, Bhattacharya S, Barman SS & & Syamal AK 2022 Role of anti-Mullerian hormone in polycystic ovary syndrome. Middle East Fertility Society Journal 27 32. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-022-00123-5)
de Vet A, Laven JSE, De Jong FH, Themmen APN & & Fauser BCJM 2002 AntiMüllerian hormone serum levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging. Fertility and Sterility 77 357–362. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(0102993-4)
Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R, Griesinger G, Kelsey TW, La Marca A, Lambalk C, et al.2014 The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Human Reproduction Update 20 370–385. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt062)
Durlinger AL, Visser JA & & Themmen AP 2002a Regulation of ovarian function: the role of anti-Mullerian hormone. Reproduction 124 601–609. (https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.0.1240601)
Durlinger ALL, Gruijters MJG, Kramer P, Karels B, Ingraham HA, Nachtigal MW, Uilenbroek JTJ, Grootegoed JA & & Themmen APN 2002b Anti-Müllerian hormone inhibits initiation of primordial follicle growth in the mouse ovary. Endocrinology 143 1076–1084. (https://doi.org/10.1210/endo.143.3.8691)
Foyouzi N, Frisbæk Y & & Norwitz ER 2004 Pituitary gland and pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 31 873–892. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2004.08.003)
Freeman JR, Whitcomb BW, Roy A, Bertone-Johnson ER, Reich NG & & Healy AJ 2018 A pilot longitudinal study of anti-Müllerian hormone levels throughout gestation in low risk pregnancy. Health Science Reports 1 e53. (https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.53)
Gassner D & & Jung R 2014 First fully automated immunoassay for anti-Müllerian hormone. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 52 1143–1152. (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0022)
Gerli S, Favilli A, Brozzetti A, Torlone E, Pugliese B, Pericoli S, Bini V & & Falorni A 2015 Anti-Mullerian hormone concentration during the third trimester of pregnancy and puerperium: a longitudinal case-control study in normal and diabetic pregnancy. Endocrine 50 250–255. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-014-0515-4)
Gnoth C, Roos J, Broomhead D, Schiffner J, Godehardt E, Freundl G & & Johnson S 2015 AntiMüllerian hormone levels and numbers and sizes of antral follicles in regularly menstruating women of reproductive age referenced to true ovulation day. Fertility and Sterility 104 1535–43.e1. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.027)
Gold EB, Bromberger J, Crawford S, Samuels S, Greendale GA, Harlow SD & & Skurnick J 2001 Factors Associated with Age at Natural Menopause in a Multiethnic Sample of Midlife Women. American Journal of Epidemiology 153 865–874. (https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/153.9.865)
Govan ADT 1970 Ovarian follicular activity in late pregnancy. Journal of Endocrinology 48 235–241. (https://doi.org/10.1677/joe.0.0480235)
Hehenkamp WJ, Looman CW, Themmen AP, De Jong FH, Te Velde ER & & Broekmans FJ 2006 Anti-Müllerian hormone levels in the spontaneous menstrual cycle do not show substantial fluctuation. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 91 4057–4063. (https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2006-0331)
Jaswa EG, Rios JS, Cedars MI, Santoro NF, Pavone MEG, Legro RS & & Huddleston HG 2020 Increased body mass index is associated with A Nondilutional reduction in antiMüllerian hormone. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 105 3234–3242. (https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa436)
Kim C, Karvonen-Gutierrez C, Kong S, Arends V, Steffes M, McConnell DS, Randolph JF & Harlow SD 2016 AntiMüllerian hormone among women with and without type 1 diabetes: the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Study and the Michigan Bone Health and Metabolism Study. Fertility and Sterility 106 1446–1452. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.009)
Koninger A, Kauth A, Schmidt B, Schmidt M, Yerlikaya G, Kasimir-Bauer S, Kimmig R & & Birdir C 2013 Anti-Mullerian-hormone levels during pregnancy and postpartum. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology: RB&E 11 60. (https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-11-60)
Kwee J, Schats R, Mcdonnell J, Themmen A, De Jong F & & Lambalk C 2008 Evaluation of anti-Mullerian hormone as a test for the prediction of ovarian reserve. Fertility and Sterility 90 737–743. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.1293)
La Marca A, Broekmans FJ, Volpe A, Fauser BC, Macklon NS & ESHRE Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology--AMH Round Table 2009 Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): what do we still need to know? Human Reproduction 24 2264–2275. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep210)
La Marca A, Giulini S, Orvieto R, De Leo V & & Volpe A 2005 Anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations in maternal serum during pregnancy. Human Reproduction 20 1569–1572. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh819)
La Marca A, Grisendi V & & Griesinger G 2013 How much does AMH really vary in normal women? International Journal of Endocrinology 2013 959487. (https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/959487)
La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC & & Volpe A 2006 Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Human Reproduction 21 3103–3107. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del291)
Lambert-Messerlian G, Plante B, Eklund EE, Raker C & & Moore RG 2016 Levels of antiMullerian hormone in serum during the normal menstrual cycle. Fertility and Sterility 105 208–13.e1. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.033)
Li HW, Hui PW, Tang MH, Lau ET, Yeung WS, Ho PC & & Ng EH 2010 Maternal serum anti-Mullerian hormone level is not superior to chronological age in predicting Down syndrome pregnancies. Prenatal Diagnosis 30 320–324. (https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2455)
McCredie S, Ledger W & & Venetis CA 2017 Anti-Müllerian hormone kinetics in pregnancy and post-partum: a systematic review. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 34 522–533. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.02.005)
Moolhuijsen LME & & Visser JA 2020 Anti-Müllerian hormone and ovarian reserve: update on assessing ovarian function. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 105 3361–3373. (https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa513)
Nelson SM, Stewart F, Fleming R & & Freeman DJ 2010 Longitudinal assessment of antiMullerian hormone during pregnancy-relationship with maternal adiposity, insulin, and adiponectin. Fertility and Sterility 93 1356–1358. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.07.1676)
Overbeek A, Broekmans FJ, Hehenkamp WJ, Wijdeveld ME, Van Disseldorp J, Van Dulmen-Den Broeder E & & Lambalk CB 2012 Intra-cycle fluctuations of anti-Mullerian hormone in normal women with a regular cycle: a re-analysis. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 24 664–669. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.02.023)
Pankhurst MW, Clark CA, Zarek J, Laskin CA & & Mclennan IS 2016 Changes in circulating ProAMH and total AMH during healthy pregnancy and post-partum: a longitudinal study. PLoS One 11 e0162509. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162509)
Pankhurst MW, De Kat AC, Jones S, Broekmans FJM & & Wheeler BJ 2021 Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels in women are unstable in the postpartum period but return to normal within 5 months: a longitudinal study. Endocrine 71 225–232. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-020-02491-2)
Peluso C, Fonseca FLA, Rodart IF, Cavalcanti V, Gastaldo G, Christofolini DM, Barbosa CP & & Bianco B 2014 AMH: an ovarian reserve biomarker in assisted reproduction. Clinica Chimica Acta; International Journal of Clinical Chemistry 437 175–182. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2014.07.029)
Plante BJ, Beamon C, Schmitt CL, Moldenhauer JS & & Steiner AZ 2010 Maternal antiMullerian hormone levels do not predict fetal aneuploidy. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 27 409–414. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9433-4)
Santillan D, Empey R, Santillan MK, Tyler E, Hunter S, Smith EM & & Stegmann BJ 2012 Influence of fetal sex on maternal anti-Mullerian hormone levels. Reproductive Sciences 1 117A–118A.
Stegmann BJ, Santillan M, Leader B, Smith E & & Santillan D 2015 Changes in antiMullerian hormone levels in early pregnancy are associated with preterm birth. Fertility and Sterility 104 347–55.e3. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.04.044)
Teede H, Misso M, Tassone EC, Dewailly D, Ng EH, Azziz R, Norman RJ, Andersen M, Franks S, Hoeger K, et al.2019 Anti-Müllerian hormone in PCOS: a review informing international guidelines. Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism 30 467–478. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2019.04.006)
Tsepelidis S, Devreker F, Demeestere I, Flahaut A, Gervy Ch & & Englert Y 2007 Stable serum levels of anti-Mullerian hormone during the menstrual cycle: a prospective study in normo-ovulatory women. Human Reproduction 22 1837–1840. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem101)
Van Rooij IAJ, Broekmans FJM, Te Velde ER, Fauser BCJM, Bancsi LFJMM, De Jong FH & & Themmen APN 2002 Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Human Reproduction 17 3065–3071. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.12.3065)
Vegetti W & & Alagna F 2006 FSH and folliculogenesis: from physiology to ovarian stimulation. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 12 684–694. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(1061080-2)
Verdiesen RMG, Onland-Moret NC, Van Gils CH, Stellato RK, Spijkerman AMW, Picavet HSJ, Broekmans FJM, Verschuren WMM & & Van Der Schouw YT 2021 Anti-Müllerian hormone levels and risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetologia 64 375–384. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-020-05302-5)
Villarroel C, Salinas A, López P, Kohen P, Rencoret G, Devoto L & & Codner E 2018 Anti-Müllerian hormone in type 2 and gestational diabetes during the second half of pregnancy: relationship with sexual steroid levels and metabolic parameters. Gynecological Endocrinology 34 120–124. (https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2017.1359824)
Visser JA, De Jong FH, Laven JSE & & Themmen APN 2006 Anti-Müllerian hormone: a new marker for ovarian function. Reproduction 131 1–9. (https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00529)
Whelan EA, Sandler DP, McConnaughey DR & & Weinberg CR 1990 Menstrual and reproductive characteristics and age at natural menopause. American Journal of Epidemiology 131 625–632. (https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115546)
