Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on September 12, 2007
Human Reproduction 2007 22(11):2879-2882; doi:10.1093/humrep/dem289
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/11/2879    most recent
dem289v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gleicher, N.
Right arrow Articles by Barad, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gleicher, N.
Right arrow Articles by Barad, D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Differences in ovarian function parameters between Chinese and Caucasian oocyte donors: do they offer an explanation for lower IVF pregnancy rates in Chinese women?

Norbert Gleicher1,2,5, Andrea Weghofer1,2, JiangMi Li1 and David Barad1,3,4

1 Center for Human Reproduction—New York, The Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY 10021, USA 2 Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA 3 Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA 4 Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA

5 Correspondence address. Center for Human Reproduction—New York, The Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY 10021, USA. Tel: +1-212-994-4400; Fax: +1-212-994-4499; E-mail: ngleicher{at}thechr.com

BACKGROUND: IVF outcomes in Chinese women are inferior to those of Caucasian patients. Reflecting prematurely diminished ovarian function, women with elevated age-specific baseline (b-) FSH levels are designated to suffer from premature ovarian aging (POA). We investigated if the prevalence of POA differs between these two ethnic populations.

METHODS: We compared patient characteristics and first IVF cycle outcomes in 29 consecutive, Caucasian and 17 Asian-Chinese oocyte donors. POA was diagnosed in a donor if her b-FSH levels exceeded the 95% confidence interval (CI) for her age group.

RESULTS: There was no age difference between Chinese and Caucasian groups (26.2 ± 4.9 versus 25.7 ± 3.1 years, respectively). Chinese women demonstrated, however, a higher cycle cancellation rate (5/17, 29.4%), either before cycle start or during stimulation (0/29; relative risk 1.42, 95% CI 1.04–1.9; P < 0.01), fewer oocytes per initiated cycle (9.3 ± 9.7 versus 15.3 ± 7.1, respectively; P < 0.05) (difference disappeared for only cycles that reached retrieval) and higher b-FSH levels (7.5 ± 1.9 versus 5.1 ± 1.7 mIU/ml, respectively; P = 0.004). Nine out of 17 (53%) of Chinese and only 1/26 (4%) of Caucasian donors met b-FSH level criteria for a presumptive POA diagnosis. Their odds of meeting POA criteria were approximately 30-times greater (odds ratio 31.5; 95% CI 3.5–18.7; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a possible explanation for lower IVF pregnancy rates in Chinese women. Preceding treatment, Chinese women at all ages should be carefully investigated to detect occult POA. Ethnicity may have to be considered an additional outcome variable in fertility studies.

Key words: fertility treatment/IVF/ethnicity/race/pregnancy rates

Submitted on May 2, 2007; resubmitted on August 2, 2007; accepted on August 15, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.