<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

AMH levels are NOT definitive. xpost from TTC over 40

June 28 2012 at 1:15 PM
ChickenLittle  (no login)

Hi ladies! I know there's been some agonizing over AMH levels as the new "definitive standard" of ovarian reserve, with the American metric of AMH level 1-3 considered good (below 1 is considered sub-fertile ovarian reserve, and above 3 as possible PCOS).

REs are currently viewing AMH as a much more reliable measure of ovarian reserve (along with an ultrasound AFC--antral follicle count) than the Day 3 FSH level, which, as most of us know, can vary tremendously from month to month. AFC, they think, doesn't vary nearly as much as FSH, and, they think, it will only go down over time as a woman's fertility wanes with age.

WELLLLLLLLLLL, from my own experience, this is not true. I had the test done four times, at the same hospital, shipping the blood out to the same Quest lab. Here are my results:

October 2010, Age 42.5: 1
March 2011, Age 43, one month after a failed round of IVF/ICSI: minus .16 (ie, menopausal
August 2011, Age almost 43.5: .50
June 2012, Age 44.3 (ai yi yi!): .65

No, this is not a series of typos. My AMH plummeted within six months (due to IVF hormone shifts, I assume) , then crawled back up over the past year-plus. Go figure. Granted, .65 is not an encouraging AMH level, but I am TTC naturally at this point, and don't need to meet a particular AMH level to, say, get approved for OE IVF or whatever.

As has been pointed out, the test is NOT yet FDA approved, and one TTC scientist on these boards said the test is even regarded as "cowboy science"--ie, not exactly viewed at 100% legit within the scientific community.

Anyway...just food for thought. As we've seen over and over and over again, you can't always trust the tests--or what they suggest as far as your reproductive prospects.

Best of luck to you all! xoxox Chix happy.gif

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

I should clarify...

June 28 2012, 1:53 PM 

...When I say that an AMH level of below 1 means "sub fertile" to REs/fertility doctors, that is their own standard of trying to figure out who will respond best to ovarian stimulation for IVF. Lord knows on this board alone, we've seen many women succeed--with IVF, IUI, and even TTC au naturale--with AMH levels below 1. So, despite what any pre-IVF testing may suggest, one can, indeed, beat the odds despite test numbers that may make you cry when you see them.

...When I say that my own AMH of .65 is "not encouraging," that just means that many REs would not view me as an ideal candidate for IVF, and would not encourage me to try cycling with my own eggs. But then again, I'm over 44, so no RE would see me as an ideal candidate, regardless of my AMH! happy.gif

In short, we've seen many success stories from women on these boards who have high FSH, low AMH, luteal phase defects, and all sorts of so-called hormonal challenges. Take your test results with a grain of salt, find a good, high-FSH and/or low-AMH friendly RE, and keep the faith.

 Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on FertilityCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement