2022 · Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · open access
Evaluation of at-home serum anti-Müllerian hormone testing: a head-to-head comparison study
Silliman et al.
The finding, in our words
The TAP device showed near perfect agreement with venous sampling for anti-Müllerian hormone measurements, with higher accuracy and lower pain compared to ADx card. This validates TAP as a reliable option for patient-led fertility hormone testing at home.
A paraphrase to the Library’s standard, never the abstract. The source is one link away and is always the authority.
Home DBS sampling gave testosterone results that agreed well with venous blood in men on intramuscular testosterone undecanoate, but showed falsely high values in those using topical gel, likely from skin contamination. Patients preferred home collection for its convenience, suggesting DBS is viable for decentralised monitoring of injectable testosterone if patients are taught proper technique.
The study found excellent agreement between hCG levels measured in remotely collected capillary blood and standard venous samples, with a near-perfect correlation. This demonstrates that remote self-collection is a feasible and acceptable alternative for serial pregnancy monitoring, reducing the need for clinic visits.
Capillary fingerstick sampling showed high correlation and agreement with venous sampling for serum AMH but with proportional bias, so it may improve access to testing yet should not be considered fully interchangeable without further validation.
In 46 women under hormone monitoring at Columbia University Fertility Center, oestradiol, LH, FSH, progesterone and hCG measured on routine immunoassays from 400 to 600 microlitres of upper-arm capillary blood collected with TAP Micro Select agreed closely with paired venous results for every analyte, with correlation and concordance high throughout. It is the evidence that puts a self-collected sample inside the daily monitoring of an IVF cycle.
All five at-home urine ovulation predictor kits demonstrated high accuracy (92–97%) when compared with blood LH levels, though sensitivity varied widely from 38% to 77% with Clinical Guard the lowest. Patient experience was comparable across kits, though Clinical Guard was slightly less favoured for future use.