Anti-Mullerian hormone: poor assay reproducibility in a large cohort of subjects suggests sample instability

What is the variability of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentration in repeat samples from the same individual when using the Gen II assay and how do values compare to Gen I [Diagnostic Systems Ltd (DSL)] assay results? The Gen II AMH assay displayed appreciable variability, which can be explained by sample instability. AMH is the primary predictor of ovarian performance and is used to tailor gonadatrophin dosage in cycles of IVF/ICSI and in other routine clinical settings. Thus, a robust, reproducible and sensitive method for AMH analysis is of paramount importance. The Beckman Coulter Gen II ELISA for AMH was introduced to replace earlier DSL and Immunotech assays. The performance of the Gen II assay has not previously been studied in a clinical setting. We studied an unselected group of 5007 women referred for fertility problems between 1 September 2008 and 25 October 2011; AMH was measured initially using the DSL AMH ELISA and subsequently using the Gen II assay. AMH values in the two assays were compared using a regression model in log(AMH) with a quadratic adjustment for age. Additionally, women (n = 330) in whom AMH had been determined in different samples using both the DSL and Gen II assays (paired samples) identified and the difference in AMH levels between the DSL and Gen II assays was estimated using the age-adjusted regression analysis. A subset of 313 women had repeated AMH determinations (n = 646 samples) using the DSL assay and 87 women had repeated AMH determinations using the Gen II assay (n = 177 samples) were identified. A mixed effects model in log(AMH) was utilized to estimate the sample-to-sample (within-subject) coefficients of variation of AMH, adjusting for age. Laboratory experiments including sample stability at room temperature, linearity of dilution and storage conditions used anonymized samples. In clinical practice, Gen II AMH values were ∼20% lower than those generated using the DSL assay instead of the 40% increase predicted by the kit manufacturer. Both assays displayed high within-subject variability (Gen II assay CV = 59%, DSL assay CV = 32%). In the laboratory, AMH levels in serum from 48 subjects incubated at RT for up to 7 days increased progressively in the majority of samples (58% increase overall). Pre-dilution of serum prior to assay, gave AMH levels up to twice that found in the corresponding neat sample. Pre-mixing of serum with assay buffer prior to addition to the microtitre plate gave higher readings (72% overall) compared with sequential addition. Storage at −20°C for 5 days increased AMH levels by 23% compared with fresh samples. The statistical significance of results was assessed where appropriate. The analysis of AMH levels is a retrospective study and therefore we cannot entirely rule out the existence of differences in referral practices or changes in the two populations. Our data suggests that AMH may not be stable under some storage or assay conditions and this may be more pronounced with the Gen II assay. The published conversion factors between the Gen II and DSL assays appear to be inappropriate for routine clinical practice. Further studies are urgently required to confirm our observations and to determine the cause of the apparent instability. In the meantime, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of AMH levels in the clinical setting. S. Roberts is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.