The role of neopterin and anti-Mullerian hormone in unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss – a case-control study

Abstract

This case-control study was conducted to assess whether neopterin (NP) and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) can be used as markers in the condition of unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work which has studied the association between AMH, NP and RPL. A total of 110 patients were included; 53 women who had at least two consecutive unexplained miscarriages (<12 weeks) made up the study group. The control group was established from 57 women who never had a miscarriage and had at least one healthy birth history. Peripheral blood samples were collected from each patient to analyse the AMH and NP concentrations. The results suggested that mean level of AMH (1.38 ± 0.683 ng/ml) in the patient’s group was significantly lower than the control group (1.84 ± 0.718 ng/ml). The mean levels of NP were significantly higher in the patient group (1.69 ± 0.486 vs. 1.38 ± 0.431 ng/ml).

IMPACT STATEMENT

• What is already known about this subject? To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies about the association among AMH, NP and RPL were found in the literature.

• What do the results of this study add? This pioneer study demonstrates the significant relationship between the unexplained RPL with the increased levels of NP and decreased AMH.

• What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? NP and AMH may play an effective role in illuminating the condition of unexplained RPL. High levels of NP and low values of AMH in patients with RPL can be used as predictive markers for this clinical situation. If the causes of high levels of NP and low levels of AMH can be better illuminated, new treatments towards these causes can be developed to help such patients become childbearing.

Keywords:

• Neopterin
• anti-Mullerian hormone
• unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss
• recurrent pregnancy loss

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.