TO THE EDITOR:

Information about whether sickle cell anemia (SCA) and its treatments affect female fertility is needed.1 Diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) describes low egg supply, is considered irreversible in women with cancer,2 and is a risk factor for recurrent pregnancy loss,3 miscarriage,4 and infertility.5 Women with SCA (>30 years old) have higher rates of DOR than age-matched controls.6-8 In a study of 10- to 21-year-old females with SCA, DOR occurred in 24% (8 of 33) of the hydroxyurea-treated subjects and none of the 14 untreated subjects.9 In cancer, DOR before chemotherapy is a risk factor for posttreatment infertility10 and an indication for fertility preservation.11 Fertility preservation for pre- and postpubescent females12,13 before gonadotoxic treatment is a care standard and offered to individuals with SCA before curative therapies.14,15 Fertility care may be more broadly indicated for people with ovaries and SCA.

In postpubescent individuals, ovarian reserve is measured using antimullerian hormone (AMH), a biomarker of the ovarian follicle pool, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and antral follicle count (AFC).16 These tests, originally used for infertility assessments, now inform fertility preservation decisions.11 Complete ovarian reserve tests in SCA are not reported. This study’s primary objective was to measure ovarian reserve in women under 31 years old with SCA, compare measures in age-stratified subgroups, and to test the hypotheses that DOR is associated with SCA complications or hydroxyurea use.

This IRB-approved study occurred between 1 January 2018 and 31 March 2021. We included women with SCA, ages 19 to 30 years without polycystic ovarian syndrome who continued their routine care before the study visit. Informed consent was obtained, as per the Declaration of Helsinki. Ovarian reserve was measured on menstrual cycle days 3 to 5. To measure AMH, we used the Beckman Coulter Access 2 assay.17 A reproductive endocrinologist (M.S.C.) quantified AFC by transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound. We extracted data on disease severity and treatment adherence from the medical record. Subjects completed the Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement (ASCQ-Me) Medical History Checklist and Pain Episodes Short Forms. We defined DOR using our clinical and published7 standard as AMH ≤1.1 ng/mL ± FSH >10 to 40 IU.16 Spearman’s ρ test determined the correlation of AMH and AFC. We descriptively compared subject characteristics by age (19 to 25 vs 26 to 30 years) and DOR (yes/no) in the whole cohort and in the hydroxyurea-treated group. To determine associations with DOR, the Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. As this study is small, we compared DOR and hydroxyurea exposure in our cohort to published cohorts that included women <31 years with SCA.7,9 We report the risk difference in DOR and numbers needed to harm (NNH) for subjects currently taking or not taking hydroxyurea and who ever or never took hydroxyurea. The statistical significance threshold was P < .05.

The cohort median age was 24 years (IQR 22, 28). Twenty-six subjects completed serologic measures, and 19 completed AFC measures before the COVID-19 pandemic shut down ultrasound visits. Two subjects had poor quality imaging. Among the 17 subjects with analyzable imaging, AFC was measured via transvaginal (n = 10) or transabdominal (n = 7) approach. Most subjects took hydroxyurea at some point (24/26). Current treatments were hydroxyurea (n = 15), chronic transfusions (n = 5), and supportive care (n = 6). Three subjects used hydroxyurea and chronic transfusions.

Descriptive comparisons are reported in Table 1. Expected age-associated decline in AMH occurred: AMH was higher among 19 to 25 than 26 to 30-year-olds (2.1ng/mL [IQR 1.7, 4.4]) vs 1.4 ng/mL [IQR 1.0, 2.0], P = .03). AMH correlated positively with AFC (Spearman’s ρ 0.49, 95% CI: .40-.94, P = .03). Most subjects (21/26) did not have DOR. Subjects with and without DOR (n = 5 vs n = 21) had expected differences in AMH and FSH (P < .01), but not AFC (P = .23). There were no between-group differences in self-reported or abstracted disease complications (supplemental Table).

Table 1.

Ovarian reserve in 26 young women considered by age, by presence or absence of DOR, and by presence or absence of DOR in the subgroup who reported taking hydroxyurea

Cohort by age (n = 26)Cohort by ovarian reserve (n = 26)Subgroup taking hydroxyurea (n = 15)
19-25 y (n = 16)26-30 y (n = 10)P valueDOR (n = 5)No DOR (n = 21)P valueDOR (n = 5)No DOR (n = 10)P value
Median age (IQR), y 22.5 (21, 24) 28 (27, 29) <.01 28 (27, 28) 24 (22, 26) .12 28 (27, 28) 23 (21, 24) .06 
BMI, median (IQR) 25 (21, 24) 28 (27, 29) .78 24 (21, 25) 25 (21, 26) .63 24 (21, 25) 24 (21, 26) .90 
Hormonal contraception, n .51 .58 .56 
Disease complications 
ASCQ-Me medical history score 2 (0, 3) 2 (2, 4) .5 2 (1, 3) 2 (1, 3) .93 2 (1, 3) 2 (0, 3.5) .68 
ASCQ-Me pain frequency score 50 (44, 60) 54 (42, 56) .75 44 (40, 44) 56 (48, 60) .06 44 (40, 44) 52 (44, 55) .18 
Pain episodes in past 12 months 3 (2, 9) 7 (2, 8) .88 5 (2, 7) 6 (2, 9) .78 5 (2, 7) 6 (2, 9) .63 
Cerebrovascular disease, n .12 .40 .43 
Avascular necrosis, n .01 .27 .28 
Treatment history 
Current hydroxyurea, n 10 .41 10 .04 10 — 
Ever hydroxyurea use, n 14 10 .36 19 .64 10 — 
Current transfusions, n .61 .12 .26 
Supportive care, n .58 .23 — 
Hematologic characteristics 
Hemoglobin, g/dL 8.9 (8.2, 9.8) 9.3 (8.8, 9.9) .57 8.9 (8.8, 10) 9 (8.3, 9.8) .87 8.9 (8.8, 10) 8.5 (8.0, 8.9) .30 
Mean corpuscular volume, fL 89 (86, 98) 98 (89, 103) .09 102 (100, 103) 89 (86, 97) .01 102 (100, 103) 92 (88, 99) .03 
Absolute neutrophil count, K/μL 7.9 (4.3, 8.9) 5.1 (3.6, 8.2) .25 3.7 (1.7, 8.2) 7.2 (4.6, 8.6) .27 3.7 (1.7, 8.2) 7.6 (3.1, 9.2) .33 
Ferritin, ng/mL 466 (151, 1298) 602 (87, 1982) 1.00 259 (35, 398) 642 (205, 1982) .11 259 (35, 398) 552 (232, 980) .18 
Ovarian reserve measures 
Antimullerian hormone, ng/mL 2.1 (1.7, 4.4) 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) .03 0.93 (0.9, 1.02) 2.02 (1.66, 3.58) <.01 0.93 (0.9, 1.02) 2.54 (1.77, 3.58) <.01 
Antral follicle count, n 13 (8, 30) 9 (9, 12) .46 7 (7, 7) 12 (9, 19) .23 7 (7, 7) 13 (8, 24) .28 
Follicle stimulating hormone, IU 5.9 (4.5, 8.6) 10.1 (9.1, 11.3) <.01 11.3 (10.1, 12) 6.8 (5.3, 9.2) <.01 11.3 (10.1, 12) 5.7 (4.5, 7) <.01 
Estradiol, pg/mL 44 (32, 90) 41 (39, 53) .83 32 (6, 53) 46 (33, 102) .30 32 (6, 53) 46 (34, 95) .22 
Diminished ovarian reserve, n .05 – – – – – – 
Cohort by age (n = 26)Cohort by ovarian reserve (n = 26)Subgroup taking hydroxyurea (n = 15)
19-25 y (n = 16)26-30 y (n = 10)P valueDOR (n = 5)No DOR (n = 21)P valueDOR (n = 5)No DOR (n = 10)P value
Median age (IQR), y 22.5 (21, 24) 28 (27, 29) <.01 28 (27, 28) 24 (22, 26) .12 28 (27, 28) 23 (21, 24) .06 
BMI, median (IQR) 25 (21, 24) 28 (27, 29) .78 24 (21, 25) 25 (21, 26) .63 24 (21, 25) 24 (21, 26) .90 
Hormonal contraception, n .51 .58 .56 
Disease complications 
ASCQ-Me medical history score 2 (0, 3) 2 (2, 4) .5 2 (1, 3) 2 (1, 3) .93 2 (1, 3) 2 (0, 3.5) .68 
ASCQ-Me pain frequency score 50 (44, 60) 54 (42, 56) .75 44 (40, 44) 56 (48, 60) .06 44 (40, 44) 52 (44, 55) .18 
Pain episodes in past 12 months 3 (2, 9) 7 (2, 8) .88 5 (2, 7) 6 (2, 9) .78 5 (2, 7) 6 (2, 9) .63 
Cerebrovascular disease, n .12 .40 .43 
Avascular necrosis, n .01 .27 .28 
Treatment history 
Current hydroxyurea, n 10 .41 10 .04 10 — 
Ever hydroxyurea use, n 14 10 .36 19 .64 10 — 
Current transfusions, n .61 .12 .26 
Supportive care, n .58 .23 — 
Hematologic characteristics 
Hemoglobin, g/dL 8.9 (8.2, 9.8) 9.3 (8.8, 9.9) .57 8.9 (8.8, 10) 9 (8.3, 9.8) .87 8.9 (8.8, 10) 8.5 (8.0, 8.9) .30 
Mean corpuscular volume, fL 89 (86, 98) 98 (89, 103) .09 102 (100, 103) 89 (86, 97) .01 102 (100, 103) 92 (88, 99) .03 
Absolute neutrophil count, K/μL 7.9 (4.3, 8.9) 5.1 (3.6, 8.2) .25 3.7 (1.7, 8.2) 7.2 (4.6, 8.6) .27 3.7 (1.7, 8.2) 7.6 (3.1, 9.2) .33 
Ferritin, ng/mL 466 (151, 1298) 602 (87, 1982) 1.00 259 (35, 398) 642 (205, 1982) .11 259 (35, 398) 552 (232, 980) .18 
Ovarian reserve measures 
Antimullerian hormone, ng/mL 2.1 (1.7, 4.4) 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) .03 0.93 (0.9, 1.02) 2.02 (1.66, 3.58) <.01 0.93 (0.9, 1.02) 2.54 (1.77, 3.58) <.01 
Antral follicle count, n 13 (8, 30) 9 (9, 12) .46 7 (7, 7) 12 (9, 19) .23 7 (7, 7) 13 (8, 24) .28 
Follicle stimulating hormone, IU 5.9 (4.5, 8.6) 10.1 (9.1, 11.3) <.01 11.3 (10.1, 12) 6.8 (5.3, 9.2) <.01 11.3 (10.1, 12) 5.7 (4.5, 7) <.01 
Estradiol, pg/mL 44 (32, 90) 41 (39, 53) .83 32 (6, 53) 46 (33, 102) .30 32 (6, 53) 46 (34, 95) .22 
Diminished ovarian reserve, n .05 – – – – – – 

For the ASCQ-Me Medical History Short Form and Acute Pain Episodes Short Form lower score indicates better health. DOR is not associated with collected markers of disease severity. Median (IQR) is reported unless otherwise indicated. Bold values indicate statistical significance.

DOR was associated with hydroxyurea use: all subjects with DOR (n = 5) were taking hydroxyurea compared to 10 of 21 subjects without DOR who were taking hydroxyurea (5/5 vs 10/21, P = .04). Among subjects taking hydroxyurea (n = 15), DOR was associated with higher MCV (102 fl [IQR 100, 103] vs 92 fl [IQR 88, 99], P = .03), not absolute neutrophil count, hydroxyurea duration, hydroxyurea dose or disease complications (supplemental Figure). Table 2 compares DOR by hydroxyurea exposure in this Hopkins cohort and 2 previously published cohorts.2,3 Only subjects “currently taking” or who “ever took” hydroxyurea had DOR. The NNH among those taking hydroxyurea was 3.0 (CI: 1.7, 10.6) in the Hopkins cohort and 4.1 (95% CI: 2.6, 10.4) in the Emory cohort.9 Among those who ever took hydroxyurea, NNH was 4.8 (95% CI: 2.7, 21.8) in the Hopkins cohort and 1.9 (95% CI: 1.4, 3.0) in the Multicenter Study of Hydroxyurea.7 

Table 2.

In 3 independent cohorts of young women with SCA, all subjects with DOR were exposed to hydroxyurea

Currently taking hydroxyurea“Ever took” hydroxyurea
Elchuri18,*HopkinsaHopkinsbMulticenter Study of Hydroxyurea5 
Age range, years 10-21 19-30 19-30 20-30 
Median (IQR) 14.5 (2.5) 24 (22, 28) 24 (22, 28) 29 (25, 29) 
Currently taking hydroxyurea“Ever took” hydroxyurea
Elchuri18,*HopkinsaHopkinsbMulticenter Study of Hydroxyurea5 
Age range, years 10-21 19-30 19-30 20-30 
Median (IQR) 14.5 (2.5) 24 (22, 28) 24 (22, 28) 29 (25, 29) 
HUNo HUHUNo HUEver HUNo HUEver HUNo HU
DOR 0 0 0 14 0 
No DOR 25 14 10 11 19 13 
Risk difference (95% CI) 0.24 (0.096, 0.39) 0.33 (0.095, 0.57) 0.21 (0.046, 0.37) 0.52 (0.33, 0.71) 
Number to harm (95% CI) 4.1 (2.6, 10.4) 3.0 (1.7, 10.6) 4.8 (2.7, 21.8) 1.9 (1.4, 3.0) 
HUNo HUHUNo HUEver HUNo HUEver HUNo HU
DOR 0 0 0 14 0 
No DOR 25 14 10 11 19 13 
Risk difference (95% CI) 0.24 (0.096, 0.39) 0.33 (0.095, 0.57) 0.21 (0.046, 0.37) 0.52 (0.33, 0.71) 
Number to harm (95% CI) 4.1 (2.6, 10.4) 3.0 (1.7, 10.6) 4.8 (2.7, 21.8) 1.9 (1.4, 3.0) 

Elchuri et al described DOR in adolescents with SCA taking hydroxyurea in their study.8 Pecker et al described DOR in adult women with SCA in the Multicenter Study of Hydroxyurea.7 The Multicenter Study of Hydroxyurea dataset precluded the possibility of determining whether hydroxyurea was being used at the time the samples used to measure AMH were procured, but data did identify whoever took hydroxyurea (“Ever took”). We compare subjects, dividing subjects by currently takinga or ever taking (“ever took”) hydroxyureab. No subjects without hydroxyurea exposure had DOR.

*

Elchuri et al18 measured AMH using Beckman-Coulter AMH Gen II ELISA and defined abnormally low AMH (“DOR”) as <fifth percentile for age. Pecker et al5 measured AMH using Esoterix (LabCorp) assay and defined DOR as AMH <1.1 ng/mL. In this study, we measured Beckman Coulter Access 2 assay and define DOR as AMH <1.1 ng/mL.

Mean values with standard deviation are reported in this publication.

All subjects with DOR had hydroxyurea exposure. Conversely, there was no one without hydroxyurea exposure who had DOR.

In this study of complete ovarian reserve measures in women with SCA, some young women had DOR, suggesting that counseling regarding fertility preservation is indicated for this population.5 In subjects with DOR, median AFC was 7, a value associated with lower oocyte yield during oocyte harvest for preserving fertility or in vitro fertilization.18 Addressing fertility before DOR onset will help optimize chances for future biological parenthood.

Here, DOR occurred in subjects currently taking hydroxyurea with evidence of treatment adherence by MCV, but not other treatment-related measures, as in previous studies.7,9 However, a study of 50 older women with SCD (78% SCA, mean age 35.1 ± 5.9 years) included 8 hydroxyurea-treated subjects6 with a mean AMH of 8.8 ± 8.3 pmol/L and although some subjects had reduced or negligible AMH, there was no association between hydroxyurea and AMH levels. These results are possibly confounded by the absence of an analysis adjusting for age and genotype. A larger study of well-phenotyped, age-, genotype- and treatment-stratified subjects is required for definitive conclusions about the effects of hydroxyurea on ovarian reserve and could address concerns about pre and postpubertal hydroxyurea initiation, reversibility, and even timing of fertility preservation interventions.

Even though we found no difference in disease complications by DOR status, the possibility that DOR, like hydroxyurea use, is a marker of SCA disease severity is not excluded. Even as data accrues to help refine the distinction between disease and treatment effect, the evidence presented here may inform practice.19-21 For as evidence of hydroxyurea’s benefits accumulates22 and prescribing expands,23,24 a growing number of adults with SCA will have had some hydroxyurea exposure. This study is useful for that population: among 102 young women with SCA, most (n = 84) had current or historic hydroxyurea exposure, and 32% of these subjects (n = 27/84) had DOR. Ideally, we would know whether optimized hydroxyurea use is causally associated with DOR or, since many hydroxyurea-exposed women did not have DOR, whether hydroxyurea use is only a proxy for SCA-associated risks for DOR. Absent definitive evidence, the shared decision-making process for hydroxyurea treatment provides a mechanism to address this uncertainty with patients and families.

This study’s limitations include small size and that the relationship between DOR and pregnancy outcomes were not studied. Risks for DOR in young women with SCA and no hydroxyurea exposure could not be identified due to small numbers. Studies in compound heterozygous SCD with new SCA therapies and in prepubescent girls, along with those examining hydroxyurea’s effects on fertility, oocyte quality, and pregnancy outcomes are also needed. Research teams from Europe, where fertility preservation is more accessible, may be poised to provide timely insights.15,25

This study describes a risk for DOR in some women with SCA. The presence of DOR is an accepted threshold for consideration of fertility preservation strategies.11 This is a care standard for cancer patients,10,26 but not for SCA. A proactive approach to caring for girls and women with SCA is to discuss fertility preservation. At present, inequitable access to fertility preservation limits fertility care.12,25 This disparity leads to a treatment paradigm that pits hydroxyurea, a transformative SCA treatment, against fertility, instead of coordinating treatment with fertility-preserving interventions.

The authors thank our patient-participants and the participants in studies led by Swati V. Elchuri and Lillian Meacham at Emory University and the Multicenter Study of Hydroxyurea investigators.

The American Society of Hematology Clinical Scholar Program, a Johns Hopkins Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health Award, and National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, grant K23HL146841 (L.H.P.) supported this work.

Contributions: L.H.P. contributed to study conception, execution, data analysis, and wrote and revised the manuscript; S.H. and R.V. contributed to study execution, data analysis, and manuscript revisions; J.M. contributed to data collection and analysis and revised the manuscript; and M.S.C. and S.L. contributed to study conception, execution, data analysis, and revised the manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence: Lydia H. Pecker, Division of Hematology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Avenue, Ross Research Building, Room 1025, Baltimore, MD 21205; e-mail: lpecker1@jh.edu.

The online version of this article contains a data supplement.

There is a Blood Commentary on this article in this issue.

1.
Pecker
LH
,
Sharma
D
,
Nero
A
, et al
.
Knowledge gaps in reproductive and sexual health in girls and women with sickle cell disease
.
Br J Haematol.
2021
;
194
(
6
):
970
-
979
.
2.
Rasool
S
,
Shah
D
.
Fertility with early reduction of ovarian reserve: the last straw that breaks the Camel’s back
.
Fertil Res Pract.
2017
;
3
(
1
):
15
.
3.
Hofmann
GE
,
Khoury
J
,
Thie
J
.
Recurrent pregnancy loss and diminished ovarian reserve
.
Fertil Steril.
2000
;
74
(
6
):
1192
-
1195
.
4.
Lyttle Schumacher
BM
,
Jukic
AMZ
,
Steiner
AZ
.
Antimüllerian hormone as a risk factor for miscarriage in naturally conceived pregnancies
.
Fertil Steril.
2018
;
109
(
6
):
1065
-
1071.e1
.
5.
Tremellen
K
,
Savulescu
J
.
Ovarian reserve screening: a scientific and ethical analysis
.
Hum Reprod.
2014
;
29
(
12
):
2606
-
2614
.
6.
Kopeika
J
,
Oyewo
A
,
Punnialingam
S
, et al
.
Ovarian reserve in women with sickle cell disease
.
PLoS One.
2019
;
14
(
2
):
e0213024
.
7.
Pecker
LH
,
Hussain
S
,
Christianson
MS
,
Lanzkron
S
.
Hydroxycarbamide exposure and ovarian reserve in women with sickle cell disease in the Multicenter Study of Hydroxycarbamide
.
Br J Haematol.
2020
;
191
(
5
):
880
-
887
.
8.
Garba
SR
,
Makwe
CC
,
Osunkalu
VO
, et al
.
Ovarian reserve in Nigerian women with sickle cell anaemia: a cross-sectional study
.
J Ovarian Res
.
2021
;
14
:
1
-
6
.
9.
Elchuri
SV
,
Williamson
RS
,
Clark Brown
R
, et al
.
The effects of hydroxyurea and bone marrow transplant on anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels in females with sickle cell anemia
.
Blood Cells Mol Dis.
2015
;
55
(
1
):
56
-
61
.
10.
Hopeman
MM
,
Cameron
KE
,
Prewitt
M
, et al
.
A predictive model for chemotherapy-related diminished ovarian reserve in reproductive-age women
.
Fertil Steril.
2021
;
115
(
2
):
431
-
437
.
11.
Donnez
J
,
Dolmans
M-M
.
Fertility preservation in women
.
N Engl J Med.
2017
;
377
(
17
):
1657
-
1665
.
12.
Mishkin
AD
,
Mapara
MY
,
Barhaghi
M
,
Reshef
R
.
Fertility concerns and access to care for stem cell transplantation candidates with sickle cell disease
.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2020
;
26
(
8
):
e192
-
e197
.
13.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address
: asrm@asrm.org.
Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy or gonadectomy: a committee opinion
.
Fertil Steril.
2019
;
112
(
6
):
1022
-
1033
.
14.
Pecker
LH
,
Maher
JY
,
Law
JY
,
Beach
MC
,
Lanzkron
S
,
Christianson
MS
.
Risks associated with fertility preservation for women with sickle cell anemia
.
Fertil Steril.
2018
;
110
(
4
):
720
-
731
.
15.
Mamsen
LS
,
Kristensen
SG
,
Pors
SE
, et al
.
Consequences of β-thalassemia or sickle cell disease for ovarian follicle number and morphology in girls who had ovarian tissue cryopreserved
.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne).
2021
;
11
:
593718
.
16.
Pastore
LM
,
Christianson
MS
,
Stelling
J
,
Kearns
WG
,
Segars
JH
.
Reproductive ovarian testing and the alphabet soup of diagnoses: DOR, POI, POF, POR, and FOR
.
J Assist Reprod Genet.
2018
;
35
(
1
):
17
-
23
.
17.
Baker
VL
,
Gracia
C
,
Glassner
MJ
, et al
.
Multicenter evaluation of the Access AMH antimüllerian hormone assay for the prediction of antral follicle count and poor ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation
.
Fertil Steril.
2018
;
110
(
3
):
506
-
513.e3
.
18.
Broekmans
FJ
,
Kwee
J
,
Hendriks
DJ
,
Mol
BW
,
Lambalk
CB
.
A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome
.
Hum Reprod Update.
2006
;
12
(
6
):
685
-
718
.
19.
Meier
ER
,
Abraham
AA
,
Ngwube
A
, et al
.
Hematopoietic stem cell transplant referral patterns for children with sickle cell disease vary among pediatric hematologist/oncologists’ practice focus: A Sickle Cell Transplant Advocacy and Research Alliance (STAR) study
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer.
2021
;
68
(
3
):
e28861
.
20.
Chakrabarti
S
,
Bareford
D
.
A survey on patient perception of reduced-intensity transplantation in adults with sickle cell disease
.
Bone Marrow Transplant.
2007
;
39
(
8
):
447
-
451
.
21.
Elchuri
SV
,
Williamson Lewis
R
,
Quarmyne
M-O
,
Haight
AE
,
Cottrell
HN
,
Meacham
LR
.
Longitudinal description of gonadal function in sickle-cell patients treated with hematopoietic stem cell transplant using alkylator-based conditioning regimens
.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol.
2020
;
42
(
7
):
e575
-
e582
.
22.
Pecker
LH
,
Lanzkron
S
.
Sickle cell disease
.
Ann Intern Med.
2021
;
174
(
1
):
ITC1
-
ITC16
.
23.
Su
ZT
,
Segal
JB
,
Lanzkron
S
,
Ogunsile
FJ
.
National trends in hydroxyurea and opioid prescribing for sickle cell disease by office-based physicians in the United States, 1997-2017
.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf.
2019
;
28
(
9
):
1246
-
1250
.
24.
John
CC
,
Opoka
RO
,
Latham
TS
, et al
.
Hydroxyurea dose escalation for sickle cell anemia in Sub-Saharan Africa
.
N Engl J Med.
2020
;
382
(
26
):
2524
-
2533
.
25.
Shenfield
F
,
de Mouzon
J
,
Scaravelli
G
, et al;
ESHRE Working Group on Oocyte Cryopreservation in Europe
.
Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries: statutory background, practice, storage and use
.
Hum Reprod Open.
2017
;
2017
(
1
):
hox003
.
26.
Loren
AW
,
Senapati
S
.
Fertility preservation in patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of hematopoietic cell transplants
.
Blood.
2019
;
134
(
9
):
746
-
760
.

Supplemental data

Sign in via your Institution