To the Editor:
We are writing in response to a recent case report by Gubbels and colleagues (1) describing a woman with classic galactosemia who became pregnant shortly after a low anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) blood measurement. The authors contrast their case with results published by our group from a study of 35 galactosemic girls and women (2). Read the rest of this entry »
To the Editor:
We read with interest the case report by Tocci reporting a live birth in a woman with a negligible anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as defined by an AMH of <3.5 pmol/L (1). We have previously reported a prospective cohort of 61 women with a median AMH of 3.0 (IQR 2.0 -3.8) pmol/L, where use of antagonist cycles without preprogramming achieved a clinical pregnancy rate of 14.7% per cycle started and a trend towards higher pregnancy rates as compared to agonist cycles [adjusted OR 2.89 (95% CI 0.88 -9.50); p=0.08](2). Read the rest of this entry »
To the Editor:
I read with interest the article by Doody, et al (1). The literature support for the need for luteal support in IVF was presented by Daya and Gunby.(2) A recent reanalysis (3) of this meta-analysis suggests the use of vaginal progesterone to be as effective as IM Progesterone. In order to better understand this publication I seek a few points of clarification. Read the rest of this entry »
To the Editor:
We read with respect the article by Ruopp et al. (1) that has questioned the methodological approach of our previously published review (2) on the use of aspirin in in vitro fertilization cycles. We disagree with the authors in that random-effects models should only be used in the absence of inter-study heterogeneity. With fixed-effects models, it is assumed that there is a sole common effect estimates for all studies, i.e., the true effect of treatment, in both magnitude and direction, is the same value in every study. Read the rest of this entry »
