Laparoscopic ovarian diathermy vs clomiphene citrate plus metformin as second-line strategy for infertile anovulatory patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Metformin With or Without Clomiphene Citrate Versus Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling With or Without Clomiphene Citrate to Treat Patients With Clomiphene Citrate-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Which is optimal to treat clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (CCR-PCOS) with LOD or metformin remains a problem. There are three inconsistent or even contradictory views.

Objectives: The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Metformin with or without CC and to compare them with LOD with or without CC (Met/Met-CC vs. LOD/LOD-CC) in women with CCR-PCOS who also have anovulation.

Data source: The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant studies reported between 1 Jan 1966 and 31 Aug 2019; the search was updated on 17 May 2022.

Study eligibility criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CCR-PCOS that had considered Met/Met-CC and LOD/LOD-CC as the exposure variables and fertility as the main outcome variable.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate and the primary safety outcome was miscarriage rate. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed. The robustness of the results was assessed using sensitivity analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to examine the reasons for heterogeneity. Publication bias was examined using the funnel plot, Egger linear regression, and Begg rank correlation tests. The quality of this meta-analysis was estimated according to the GRADE approach. This meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021240156).

Results: Among 71 potentially relevant studies, we included five RCTs in our meta-analysis. We found no difference in effectiveness between Met-CC and LOD in terms of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87–1.21, z = 0.28; p = 0.780), and miscarriage rates (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.46–1.36, z = 0.86; p = 0.390). I2 tests results revealed moderate or no heterogeneity (I2 = 51.4%, p = 0.083; I2= 0.0%; p = 0.952). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. Funnel plot, Egger linear regression, and Begg rank correlation tests implied no publication bias (p > 0.05). LOD was more expensive than Met (€1050 vs. €50.16). The evidence quality was moderate.

Conclusion: There is no evidence on the difference in the outcomes between the two interventions regarding ovulation, pregnancy, and live birth. As LOD is an invasive procedure and carries inherent risks, the use of Met/Met-CC should be the second-line treatment for women with CCR-PCOS.

Systematic Review Registration: identifier CRD42021240156.

The function of metformin in endometrial receptivity (ER) of patients with polycyclic ovary syndrome (PCOS): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis summarizes evidence from studies using metformin (Met) to improve endometrial receptivity (ER) in women with PCOS.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA protocol, we conducted a comprehensive search of academic literature from various databases, including PubMed, EMbase and Cochrane libraries. Studies published in English before Jan 27, 2021, were recruited for primary screening. Data on endometrial thickness (EMT), endometrial artery resistance index (RI), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and miscarriage rate (MR) were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two eligible studies that included 6571 patients were evaluated in this meta-analysis. Primary indicators are EMT and endometrial aetery RI; secondary indicators include the clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate. Metformin significantly increased EMT (SMD = 2.04, 95% CI (0.96,3.12),P = 0.0002) and reduced endometrial artery RI compared to the non-Met group (SMD = - 2.83, 95% CI: (- 5.06, - 0.59), P = 0.01). As expected, metformin also improved CPR and reduced MR in PCOS patients as a result, clinical pregnancy rate (risk ratio [RR] = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.11-1.43, P = 0.0003), and miscarriage rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI:0.58-0.91, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Metformin may improve endometrial receptivity (ER) in PCOS patients by increasing EMT and reducing endometrial artery RI. However, the level of most original studies was low, with small sample sizes. More large-scale, long-term RCTs with rigorous methodologies are needed.

Molecular Mechanisms of Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling and Its Therapeutic Effects in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrinopathy, characterized by chronic anovulation, hyperandrogenism, and multiple small subcapsular cystic follicles in the ovary during ultrasonography, and affects 5–10% of women of reproductive age. PCOS is frequently associated with insulin resistance (IR) accompanied by compensatory hyperinsulinemia and, therefore, presents an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). The pathophysiology of PCOS is unclear, and many hypotheses have been proposed. Among these hypotheses, IR and hyperandrogenism may be the two key factors. The first line of treatment in PCOS includes lifestyle changes and body weight reduction. Achieving a 5–15% body weight reduction may improve IR and PCOS-associated hormonal abnormalities. For women who desire pregnancy, clomiphene citrate (CC) is the front-line treatment for ovulation induction. Twenty five percent of women may fail to ovulate spontaneously after three cycles of CC treatment, which is called CC-resistant PCOS. For CC-resistant PCOS women, there are many strategies to improve ovulation rate, including medical treatment and surgical approaches. Among the various surgical approaches, one particular surgical method, called laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), has been proposed as an alternative treatment. LOD results in an overall spontaneous ovulation rate of 30–90% and final pregnancy rates of 13–88%. These benefits are more significant for women with CC-resistant PCOS. Although the intra- and post-operative complications and sequelae are always important, we believe that a better understanding of the pathophysiological changes and/or molecular mechanisms after LOD may provide a rationale for this procedure. LOD, mediated mainly by thermal effects, produces a series of morphological and biochemical changes. These changes include the formation of artificial holes in the very thick cortical wall, loosening of the dense and hard cortical wall, destruction of ovarian follicles with a subsequently decreased amount of theca and/or granulosa cells, destruction of ovarian stromal tissue with the subsequent development of transient but purulent and acute inflammatory reactions to initiate the immune response, and the continuing leakage or drainage of “toxic” follicular fluid in these immature and growth-ceased pre-antral follicles. All these factors contribute to decreasing local and systemic androgen levels, the following apoptosis process with these pre-antral follicles to atresia; the re-starting of normal follicular recruitment, development, and maturation, and finally, the normalization of the “hypothalamus–pituitary–ovary” axis and subsequent spontaneous ovulation. The detailed local and systematic changes in PCOS women after LOD are comprehensively reviewed in the current article.

Mini review: The FDA-approved prescription drugs that induce ovulation in women with ovulatory problems

Infertility is defined as not being able to become pregnant after 12 months or more of unprotected sexual intercourse. Female infertility as a serious health issue can result from ovulation disorders, menstrual cycle problems, structural problems, and environmental factors. Ovulation occurs once a month between the time of menarche and menopause. The release of a mature egg from the ovary is controlled with the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. Several hormones such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), FSH (follicle-stimulating hormone), LH (luteinizing hormone), estrogen, and progesterone play fundamental roles in the ovulation process. Both FSH and LH are the main treatment for women with ovulation disorders. Depending on the reasons for infertility, several different types of treatment are available for infertile women. Fertility drugs as an important part of treatment work like the natural hormones to treat infertility. Several fertility drugs can regulate ovulation and the release of an egg from the ovary in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. This mini-review is about the FDA-approved prescription drugs that induce ovulation in women with ovulatory problems.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I² = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I² = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I² = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.

Metformin for ovulation induction (excluding gonadotrophins) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by infrequent or absent ovulation, and high levels of androgens and insulin (hyperinsulinaemia). Hyperinsulinaemia occurs secondary to insulin resistance and is associated with an increased biochemical risk profile for cardiovascular disease and an increased prevalence of diabetes mellitus. Insulin-sensitising agents such as metformin may be effective in treating PCOS-related anovulation. This is an update of Morley 2017 and only includes studies on metformin.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metformin in combination with or in comparison to clomiphene citrate (CC), letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) in improving reproductive outcomes and associated gastrointestinal side effects for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to December 2018: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We searched registers of ongoing trials and reference lists from relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of metformin compared with placebo, no treatment, or in combination with or compared with CC, letrozole and LOD for women with PCOS subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and bias. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and gastrointestinal adverse effects. Secondary outcomes included other pregnancy outcomes and ovulation. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic and reported quality of the evidence for primary outcomes and reproductive outcomes using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies (4552 women). Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate based on GRADE assessment. Limitations were risk of bias (poor reporting of methodology and incomplete outcome data), imprecision and inconsistency. Metformin versus placebo or no treatment The evidence suggests that metformin may improve live birth rates compared with placebo (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.51; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 435 women; low-quality evidence). For a live birth rate of 19% following placebo, the live birth rate following metformin would be between 19% and 37%. The metformin group probably experiences more gastrointestinal side effects (OR 4.00, 95% CI 2.63 to 6.09; I² = 39%; 7 studies, 713 women; moderate-quality evidence). With placebo, the risk of gastrointestinal side effects is 10% whereas with metformin this risk is between 22% and 40%. There are probably higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.65; I² = 30%; 11 studies, 1213 women; moderate-quality evidence). There may be higher rates of ovulation with metformin (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.85 to 3.75; I² = 61%; 13 studies, 684 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect on miscarriage rates (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.35; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 748 women; low-quality evidence). Metformin plus CC versus CC alone We are uncertain if metformin plus CC improves live birth rates compared to CC alone (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.65; I² = 28%; 10 studies, 1219 women; low-quality evidence), but gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common with combined therapy (OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.83 to 6.40; I² = 8%; 6 studies, 852 women; moderate quality evidence). The live birth rate with CC alone is 24%, which may change to between 23% to 34% with combined therapy. With CC alone, the risk of gastrointestinal side effects is 9%, which increases to between 21% to 37% with combined therapy. The combined therapy group probably has higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.99; I² = 31%; 19 studies, 1790 women; moderate-quality evidence). The combined group may have higher rates of ovulation (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.03; I² = 63%;21 studies, 1568 women; low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an effect on miscarriage (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.00; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1206 women; low-quality evidence). Metformin versus CC When all studies were combined, findings for live birth were inconclusive and inconsistent (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; I² = 86%; 5 studies, 741 women; very low-quality evidence). In subgroup analysis by obesity status, obese women had a lower birth rate in the metformin group (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; 2 studies, 500 women), while the non-obese group showed a possible benefit from metformin, with high heterogeneity (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.94; I² = 78%, 3 studies, 241 women; very low-quality evidence). However, due to the very low quality of the evidence we cannot draw any conclusions. Among obese women taking metformin there may be lower rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 500 women; low-quality evidence) and ovulation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.43; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 500 women; low-quality evidence) while among non-obese women, the metformin group may have more pregnancies (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29; I² = 26%; 6 studies, 530 women; low-quality evidence) and no clear difference in ovulation rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.25; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 352 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in miscarriage rates between the groups (overall: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.66; I² = 36%; 6 studies, 781 women; low-quality evidence) and no studies reported gastrointestinal side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our updated review suggests that metformin may be beneficial over placebo for live birth however, more women probably experience gastrointestinal side effects. We are uncertain if metformin plus CC improves live birth rates compared to CC alone, but gastrointestinal side effects are probably increased with combined therapy. When metformin was compared with CC, data for live birth were inconclusive, and the findings were limited by lack of evidence. Results differed by body mass index (BMI), emphasising the importance of stratifying results by BMI. No studies reported gastrointestinal side effects in this comparison. Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage in all three comparisons.

Ovarian surgery for symptom relief in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine condition, affecting approximately one in 10 women. PCOS is defined by two of three features: oligo- or anovulation, clinical or biochemical hyperandrogenism or both, or polycystic ovaries.Women with PCOS can have a wide range of health problems, including infrequent and irregular periods, unwanted hair growth and acne, and subnormal fertility. Long-term health concerns include an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and the development of precancerous disease of the womb.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and harms of ovarian surgery as a treatment for symptomatic relief of hirsutism, acne and menstrual irregularity in PCOS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (from inception to 17 October 2016). We handsearched citation lists, registers of ongoing trials and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing ovarian drilling in comparison to no treatment, medical treatment, or other forms of surgical treatment for the symptoms of PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were improvement in menstrual regularity and androgenic symptoms of PCOS (hirsutism, acne); the secondary outcome measures included harms, change of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, androgen levels, metabolic measures and quality of life. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (2278 women analyzed) of participants with PCOS and symptoms of acne, hirsutism or irregular menstrual cycles, all of which included laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) as an intervention.Two studies reported their funding source (Farquhar 2002 - supported in part by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation; Sarouri 2015 - the authors thank the Vice Chancellor for Research of Guilan University of Medical Sciences for funding this project).The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality. The main limitations were imprecision associated with the low number of studies, inconsistency and risk of bias associated with the inability to blind participants. There were too few studies to assess risk of publication bias. Menstrual RegularityTwo studies compared LOD versus metformin (n=226) but no conclusions could be drawn with regard to menstrual regularity, as their findings were inconsistent and they were unsuitable for pooling. There appeared to be little or no difference in the rate of women reporting improvement in menstrual regularity when LOD was compared with medical treatment including metformin + clomiphene (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.64, 2 studies, 332 women, I² = 13%, low-quality evidence), letrozole (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.84, 1 study, 260 women, low-quality evidence), or metformin + letrozole (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81, 1 study, 146 women, low-quality evidence). However, one study reported that LOD was superior to gonadotrophin (OR 19.2, 95% CI 3.17 to 116.45, 1 study, 35 women, very low-quality evidence).There appeared to be little or no difference in the rate of women reporting improvement in menstrual regularity when bilateral unipolar LOD was compared to unilateral LOD (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.71, 2 studies, 104 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence), transvaginal ultrasound-guided LOD (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.37, 1 study, 147 women, low-quality evidence), LOD using adjusted thermal dose in accordance with the ovarian volume (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.14, 1 study, 115 women, low-quality evidence) or bipolar LOD (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57, 1 study, 18 women, low-quality evidence).Four to five punctures per ovary may improve the rate of women reporting menstrual regularity compared with two or fewer (OR 16.04, 95% CI 4.19 to 61.34, 2 studies, 73 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). Androgenic SymptomsThere was probably little or no difference in improvement in androgenic symptoms when LOD was compared to metformin (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.37, 1 study, 126 women, moderate-quality evidence) or gonadotrophins; acne (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.94, 1 study, 25 women, low-quality evidence), hirsutism (OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.22 to 23.89, 1 study, 25 women, low-quality evidence).There appeared to be little or no difference in improvement of androgenic symptoms when LOD was compared to transvaginal ultrasound-guided LOD, with respect to hirsutism (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.91, 1 study, 39 women, low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.50, 1 study, 31 women, low-quality evidence). HarmsLOD was associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects than metformin plus clomiphene (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.36, 2 studies, 332 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). One study suggested little or no difference in rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome between LOD and gonadotrophins (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.61, 1 study, 33 women, low-quality evidence).There were fewer adhesions with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy compared to LOD (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, 1 study, 246 women, moderate-quality evidence). There appeared to be little or no difference in adhesions when variable energy LOD was compared with standard LOD (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.88, 1 study, 64 women, low-quality evidence). Another study (44 women) reported that none of the women who returned for surgery following either traditional or unilateral LOD were found to have adhesions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no clear evidence that LOD improves menstrual regularity or the androgenic symptoms of PCOS, compared to most of the medical treatments used in the included studies. LOD was associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects compared to metformin and clomiphene.There was also no clear evidence of different effectiveness between types of LOD, except that LOD with four to five punctures per ovary may be more effective than two or fewer punctures. There was little evidence comparing LOD with different types of surgery, although one study concluded that transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy had a lower risk of adhesions than LOD.There was evidence from one small study of benefit from LOD compared to gonadotrophins for menstrual regulation. However, gonadotrophins are seldom used for this indication.

Comparative effectiveness of 9 ovulation-induction therapies in patients with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome: a network meta-analysis

The comparative efficacies of ovulation-induction treatments in patients with clomiphene citrate-resistant (CCR) polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are not well known. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to rank the reproductive efficacies of these treatments. We ultimately included 26 randomized clinical trials with 2722 participants and 9 types of therapies: clomiphene citrate (CC), metformin, letrozole, follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG), unilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling (ULOD), bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling (BLOD), the combination of metformin with letrozole (metformin+letrozole), and the combination of metformin with CC (metformin+CC). The network meta-analysis demonstrates that hMG therapy result in higher pregnancy rates than BLOD, ULOD and CC therapies. Pregnancy, live birth and ovulation rates are significantly higher in metformin+letrozole and FSH groups than CC group. The abortion rate in the metformin+letrozole group is significantly lower than that in the metformin+CC group. Ranking probabilities show that, apart from gonadotropin (FSH and hMG), metformin+letrozole is also potentially more effective in improving reproductive outcomes than other therapies. In conclusion, owing to the low quality of evidence and the wide confidence intervals, no recommendation could be made for the treatment of ovulation-induction in patients with CCR PCOS.

Polycystic ovary syndrome: chemical pharmacotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common reproductive endocrine disease among women of childbearing age. The clinical features are heterogeneous and vary in intensity. Hirsutism, menstrual disorders and infertility are the most frequent conditions observed; however, long-term complications (dyslipidemia, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, endometrial cancer) are also often described. Each disorder may be managed by tailored strategies, employing sequential or combined pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological treatment.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the drugs used for PCOS management and discuss new approaches. A systematic MEDLINE search regarding the randomized controlled trials, retrospective and observational studies about medical treatments of PCOS, the Cochrane library for reviews and also search for registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov is performed.

EXPERT OPINION

A uniform treatment for PCOS patients does not exist. Clinicians should perform an accurate evaluation of patients' characteristics, identifying the phenotypic target and, subsequently, the best-tailored treatment to manage one or more clinical issues. Lifestyle intervention should always be the first recommended approach unless other issues indicate that drug or hormonal interventions are superior.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling: An alternative but not the ultimate in the management of polycystic ovary syndrome

Since its introduction in 1984, laparoscopic ovarian drilling has evolved into a safe and effective surgical treatment for anovulatory, infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), unresponsive to clomiphene citrate. It is as effective as gonadotropins in terms of pregnancy and live birth rates, but without the risks of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. It improves ovarian responsiveness to successive ovulation induction agents. Its favorable reproductive and endocrinal effects are sustained long. Despite its advantages, its use in unselected cases of PCOS or for non-fertility indications is not prudent owing to the potential risks of iatrogenic adhesions and ovarian insufficiency.

First-trimester exposure to metformin and risk of birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Metformin is generally considered a non-teratogenic drug; however, only a few studies specifically designed to assess the rate of congenital anomalies after metformin use have been published in the literature. The objects of the present study were to review all of the prospective and retrospective studies reporting on women treated with metformin at least during the first trimester of their pregnancy and to estimate the overall rate of major birth defects.

METHODS

Databases were searched for English language articles until December 2013. Inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were: a case group of women with PCOS or pre-pregnancy type 2 diabetes and first-trimester exposure to metformin; a disease-matched control group which was not exposed to metformin or other oral anti-diabetic agents; and a list of the major anomalies in both the study and the control groups. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis of data, using odds ratios. Studies not fulfilling the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis but reporting relevant data on major malformations in women diagnosed with PCOS were then used to estimate the overall birth defects rate.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of nine controlled studies with women affected by PCOS detected that the rate of major birth defects in the metformin-exposed group was not statistically increased compared with the disease-matched control group and that there was no significant heterogeneity among the studies. The metformin-exposed sample was composed of 351 pregnancies and the OR of major birth defects was 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.18-4.08; Pheterogeneity = 0.71). By evaluating all of the non-overlapping PCOS studies reported in the literature, even those without an appropriate control group, the overall rate of major anomalies was 0.6% in the sample of 517 women who discontinued the therapy upon conception or confirmation of pregnancy and 0.5% in the sample of 634 women who were treated with metformin throughout the first trimester of their pregnancy. Regarding type 2 diabetic women, we did not identify a sufficient number of studies with metformin exposure during the first trimester to proceed with the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence that metformin is associated with an increased risk of major birth defects in women affected by PCOS and treated during the first trimester. However larger ad hoc studies are warranted in order to definitely confirm the safety and efficacy of this drug in pregnancy.

Laparoscopic drilling by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Surgical ovarian wedge resection was the first established treatment for women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) but was largely abandoned both due to the risk of postsurgical adhesions and the introduction of medical ovulation induction. However, women with PCOS who are treated with medical ovulation induction, with drugs such as gonadotrophins, often have an over-production of follicles which may result in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. Moreover, gonadotrophins, though effective, are costly and time-consuming and their use requires intensive monitoring. Surgical therapy with laparoscopic ovarian 'drilling' (LOD) may avoid or reduce the need for medical ovulation induction, or may facilitate its usefulness. The procedure can be done on an outpatient basis with less trauma and fewer postoperative adhesions than with traditional surgical approaches. Many uncontrolled observational studies have claimed that ovarian drilling is followed, at least temporarily, by a high rate of spontaneous ovulation and conception, or that subsequent medical ovulation induction becomes easier.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic ovarian drilling compared with ovulation induction for subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) to search the MDSG Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The keywords included polycystic ovary syndrome, laparoscopic ovarian drilling, electrocautery and diathermy. Searches were conducted in September 2011, and a further search of the MDSG Trials Register was made on 14 May 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS who undertook laparoscopic ovarian drilling in order to induce ovulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is an update of a previously updated review. There were nine RCTs in the previous version; an additional 16 trials were added in the current (2012) update. All trials were assessed for quality. The primary outcomes were live birth and multiple pregnancy. The secondary outcomes were rate of miscarriage, ovulation and pregnancy rates, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), quality of life and cost.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials, including 1210 women, reported on the primary outcome of live birth rate per couple. Live births were reported in 34% of women in the LOD groups and 38% in other medical treatment groups. There were five different comparisons with LOD and there was no evidence of a difference in live births when compared with clomiphene citrate + tamoxifen (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.53; P = 0.51, 1 trial, n = 150), gonadotrophins (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.59; P = 0.89, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, n = 318), aromatase inhibitors (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; P = 0.44, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, n = 407) or clomiphene citrate (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.64 to 2.32; 1 trial, n=176, P= 0.05). There was evidence of significantly fewer live births following LOD compared with clomiphene citrate + metformin (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.82; P = 0.01, I(2) = 78%, 2 trials, n = 159); the high heterogeneity in this subgroup could not be explained by population differences or differences in quality of the trials.Thirteen trials reported on multiple pregnancies (n= 1305 women). There were no cases of multiple pregnancies in either group for clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors compared with LOD. The rate of multiple pregnancies was significantly lower in the LOD group compared with trials using gonadotrophins (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.52; P=0.004, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, n = 166).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of a significant difference in rates of clinical pregnancy, live birth or miscarriage in women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS undergoing LOD compared to other medical treatments. The reduction in multiple pregnancy rates in women undergoing LOD makes this option attractive. However, there are ongoing concerns about the long-term effects of LOD on ovarian function.

The treatment of infertility in polycystic ovary syndrome: a brief update

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of anovulatory infertility. Lifestyle change alone is considered the first-line treatment for the management of infertile anovulatory PCOS women who are overweight or obese. First-line medical ovulation induction therapy to improve fertility outcomes is clomiphene citrate, whilst gonadotrophins, laparoscopic ovarian surgery or possibly metformin are second line in clomiphene citrate-resistant PCOS women. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend aromatase inhibitors over that of clomiphene citrate in infertile anovulatory PCOS women in general or specifically in therapy naive or clomiphene citrate-resistant PCOS women. IVF/ICSI treatment is recommended either as a third-line treatment or in the presence of other infertility factors.

Evidence-Based Management of Infertility in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Using Surgery or Assisted Reproductive Technology

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has been managed surgically since the development of wedge resection in the 1930s. Second-line surgical interventions for anovulation associated with PCOS include laparoscopic ovarian diathermy, which is as effective as medical induction of ovulation with gonadotropins, with a much reduced risk of multiple pregnancy. Bariatric surgery may be considered for morbidly obese patients with PCOS, although further research assessing such surgery specifically in PCOS patients is needed. Assisted reproduction, in the form of IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection, is usually indicated as third-line medical treatment or in the presence of other infertility factors. There is an ongoing debate concerning the relative merits of IVF and ovulation induction in PCOS, comparing the higher multiple pregnancy rate of ovulation induction with the greater cost and psychological stress of IVF.

Insulin-sensitizing agents in the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most frequent endocrinopathy in reproductive-aged women, mainly characterized by oligoanovulation and hyperandrogenism. Insulin resistance represents a major pathophysiological feature of the syndrome and, therefore, insulin-sensitizing agents (metformin and thiazolidinediones) have been applied in PCOS women. However, the clinical use of insulin sensitizers in PCOS has been debated. The aim of the current review was to update the knowledge regarding the role of metformin and thiazolidinediones in PCOS treatment, focusing on recently published studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several clinical trials examined metformin effectiveness on lipids, atherosclerosis and inflammatory markers, hormone levels, menstrual irregularities, ovulation induction, fertility, hirsutism, obesity parameters and quality of life in PCOS women. Metformin treatment was shown to improve these features, although conflicting results were also reported. Only one study investigated pioglitazone effect on PCOS, reporting an improved IVF outcome in clomiphene citrate-resistant PCOS patients. Finally, both metformin and pioglitazone, as a part of a low-dose polytherapy, exerted beneficial effects on lipids, androgen levels, hirsutism and markers of atherosclerosis in nonobese PCOS women.

SUMMARY

Further research, including larger randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, is needed to clarify the role of metformin and thiazolidinediones in the treatment of clinical and biochemical PCOS characteristics.

Serum and follicular anti-Mullerian hormone levels in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) under metformin

BACKGROUND

No data regarding metformin effects on follicular fluid anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels were to date available in literature. The aim of the present study was to evaluate in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) whether metformin administration affects serum and follicular AMH levels, and whether this is related to ovarian response to the treatment.

METHODS

Twenty young patients with PCOS who had received metformin were enrolled. Ten patients were anovulatory (Met-anov group), whereas the other 10 were ovulatory (Met-ov group) but had failed to conceive. Further untreated PCOS (PCOS controls, n. 10) and healthy controls (non-PCOS controls, n. 10) who were scheduled for laparoscopic surgery were enrolled. In each subjects, clinical and biochemical evaluations were performed. AMH concentrations in blood and antral follicular fluid were assayed.

RESULTS

In both Met-anov and Met-ov groups, and without difference between them, serum androgens and AMH, and indices of insulin resistance were significantly (p < 0.05) improved after treatment. On the other hand, significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two groups were detected with respect to the same biochemical parameters in antral follicular fluid. In the Met-anov group, no significant correlation was observed between AMH concentrations in the follicular fluid and variation in serum androgens, AMH and insulin resistance indexes; whereas in Met-ov group significant correlations were detected between AMH levels in the follicular fluid and variation in serum androgens, AMH and insulin resistance indexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin administration in patients with PCOS exerts a differential action on the ovarian AMH levels on the basis of ovulatory response. Changes in AMH levels in antral follicular fluid during metformin treatment could be involved in the local mechanisms mediating the ovulatory restoration.

Treatment of infertility in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

The treatment of infertility in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) associates lifestyle measures, and the use of drugs to induce ovulation. In this endeavour, clomifene citrate (CC) should be used as the first line of treatment, followed eventually by low dose gonadotrophin stimulation, as a second line. In rare cases, in case of failure of the CC treatment, ovarian drilling i.e. laparoscopic ovarian surgery (LOS), and finally assisted reproduction techniques can be used, if needed. Overall, ovulation induction (representing the CC-gonadotrophin paradigm) is highly effective with a cumulative singleton live birth rate of 72%. The use of insulin sensitizers i.e. metformin in PCOS should be restricted to women with glucose intolerance and/or insulin resistance. Based on recent data available, the routine use of this drug, alone, in ovulation induction is not recommended.