Letrozole versus laparoscopic ovarian drilling in infertile women with PCOS resistant to clomiphene citrate

Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) for ovulation induction in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 5% to 20% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory infertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Since about 2001 clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI, letrozole, is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC), a selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of AIs (letrozole) (with or without adjuncts) compared to SERMs (with or without adjuncts) for infertile women with anovulatory PCOS for ovulation induction followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following sources, from their inception to 4 November 2021, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We also checked reference lists of relevant trials, searched the trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. We did not restrict the searches by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all RCTs of AIs used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed risks of bias using RoB 1. We pooled trials where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes, and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth rate and OHSS rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

This is a substantive update of a previous review; of six previously included trials, we excluded four from this update and moved two to 'awaiting classification' due to concerns about validity of trial data. We included five additional trials for this update that now includes a total of 41 RCTs (6522 women). The AI, letrozole, was used in all trials. Letrozole compared to SERMs with or without adjuncts followed by timed intercourse Live birth rates were higher with letrozole (with or without adjuncts) compared to SERMs followed by timed intercourse (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.11; I2 = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; 11 trials, 2060 participants; high-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 20% chance of live birth using SERMs, the live birth rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 27% to 35%. There is high-certainty evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or SERMs (0.5% in both arms: risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 1848 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is evidence for a higher pregnancy rate in favour of letrozole (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.98; I2 = 0%; NNTB = 10; 23 trials, 3321 participants; high-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 24% chance of clinical pregnancy using SERMs, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 32% to 39%. There is little or no difference between treatment groups in the rate of miscarriage per pregnancy (25% with SERMs versus 24% with letrozole: OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 15 trials, 736 participants; high-certainty evidence) and multiple pregnancy rate (2.2% with SERMs versus 1.6% with letrozole: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 14 trials, 2247 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, a funnel plot showed mild asymmetry, indicating that some trials in favour of SERMs might be missing.  Letrozole compared to laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) One trial reported very low-certainty evidence that live birth rates may be higher with letrozole compared to LOD (OR 2.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 4.32; 1 trial, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 22% chance of live birth using LOD with or without adjuncts, the live birth rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 24% to 47%. No trial reported OHSS rates. Due to the low-certainty evidence we are uncertain if letrozole improves pregnancy rates compared to LOD (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.28; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 367 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 29% chance of clinical pregnancy using LOD with or without adjuncts, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 28% to 45%. There seems to be no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates per pregnancy comparing letrozole to LOD (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.92; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). This also applies to multiple pregnancies (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.90; 1 trial, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Letrozole appears to improve live birth rates and pregnancy rates in infertile women with anovulatory PCOS, compared to SERMs, when used for ovulation induction, followed by intercourse. There is high-certainty evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or SERMs. There was high-certainty evidence of no difference in miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. We are uncertain if letrozole increases live birth rates compared to LOD. In this update, we added good quality trials and removed trials with concerns over data validity, thereby upgrading the certainty of the evidence base.

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.

Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling Improves Endometrial Homeobox Gene Expression in PCOS

The study was designed to investigate whether laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) of ovaries alters the expression levels of HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA in the endometrium of infertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS. Expression of HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA in the endometrium obtained before and after LOD during the midsecretory phase was measured. Expression of each gene was evaluated using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Expression levels of HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA were lower in endometrium of patients with PCOS before LOD compared with fertile controls. But the differences failed to show statistical significance. Compared with fertile subjects, LOD of PCOS ovaries up-regulated endometrial HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA expression. Fold changes of HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA after LOD were found to be 4.46 and 4.19, respectively. Fold change increase in HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA was found to be statistically significant (P < .01, P < .02). There is a receptivity defect in the endometrium of women with PCOS that affects fertility regardless of other causes of infertility. LOD increases endometrial HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA expressions and improves receptivity in patients with clomiphene-resistant PCOS.

Letrozole versus laparoscopic ovarian drilling in clomiphene citrate-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The objective of this systematic review was to examine the literature and to compare the effectiveness of letrozole (LE) versus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) for the induction of ovulation in women with clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The PUBMED, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched systematically for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from English language articles published from database inception to September 2018. Data were independently extracted and analyzed using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model according to the heterogeneity of the data. Four RCTs including 621 patients (309 in the LE group and 312 in the LOD group) met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences with regard to ovulation rate (relative risk [RR] 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.34; P = 0.12, I² = 90%, 541 patients, three studies), pregnancy rate (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.53; P = 0.12, I² = 0%, 621 patients, four studies), live birth rate (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.68; P = 0.09, I² = 19%, 541 patients, three studies), and abortion rate (RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.3 to 1.61; P = 0.40, I² = 0%, 621 patients, four studies) between the two groups. These results indicated that LE and LOD appear to be equally effective in achieving live birth rate in patients with CC-resistant PCOS.

Evidence summaries and recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome: assessment and treatment of infertility

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended assessment and management of infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertize and consumer preference?

SUMMARY ANSWER

International evidence-based guidelines, including 44 recommendations and practice points, addressed prioritized questions to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes of infertile women with PCOS.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Previous guidelines on PCOS lacked rigorous evidence-based processes, failed to engage consumer and multidisciplinary perspectives or were outdated. The assessment and management of infertile women with PCOS are inconsistent. The needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met and evidence practice gaps persist.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Governance included a six continent international advisory and a project board, a multidisciplinary international guideline development group (GDG), consumer and translation committees. Extensive health professional and consumer engagement informed the guideline scope and priorities. The engaged international society-nominated panel included endocrinology, gynaecology, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis and translation experts. Thirty-seven societies and organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Extensive online communication and two face-to-face meetings over 15 months addressed 19 prioritized clinical questions involving nine evidence-based reviews and 10 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations (EBRs) were formulated prior to consensus voting within the guideline panel.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

International evidence-based guideline development engaged professional societies and consumer organizations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. A (AGREE) II-compliant processes were followed, with extensive evidence synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, desirable and undesirable consequences, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength. The guideline was peer-reviewed by special interest groups across our partner and collaborating societies and consumer organizations, was independently assessed against AGREE II criteria and underwent methodological review. This guideline was approved by all members of the GDG and has been approved by the NHMRC.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The quality of evidence (QOE) for the EBRs in the assessment and management of infertility in PCOS included very low (n = 1), low (n = 9) and moderate (n = 4) quality with no EBRs based on high-quality evidence. The guideline provides 14 EBRs, 10 clinical consensus recommendations (CCRs) and 20 clinical practice points on the assessment and management of infertility in PCOS. Key changes in this guideline include emphasizing evidence-based fertility therapy, including cheaper and safer fertility management.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Overall evidence is generally of low to moderate quality, requiring significantly greater research in this neglected, yet common condition. Regional health systems vary and a process for adaptation of this guideline is provided.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The international guideline for the assessment and management of infertility in PCOS provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the guideline with an integrated evaluation program.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was primarily funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) supported by a partnership with ESHRE and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). GDG members did not receive payment. Travel expenses were covered by the sponsoring organizations. Disclosures of conflicts of interest were declared at the outset and updated throughout the guideline process, aligned with NHMRC guideline processes. Dr Costello has declared shares in Virtus Health and past sponsorship from Merck Serono for conference presentations. Prof. Norman has declared a minor shareholder interest in the IVF unit Fertility SA, travel support from Merck and grants from Ferring. Prof. Norman also has scientific advisory board duties for Ferring. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

This article was not externally peer-reviewed by Human Reproduction Open.

Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 4% to 8% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory subfertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Since about 2001 clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI letrozole is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with anovulatory PCOS for ovulation induction followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following sources from inception to November 2017 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Pubmed, LILACS, Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical trials register and Clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched the references of relevant articles. We did not restrict the searches by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all RCTs of AIs used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed risks of bias. We pooled studies where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes, and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth and OHSS. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

This is a substantive update of a previous review. We identified 16 additional studies for the 2018 update. We include 42 RCTs (7935 women). The aromatase inhibitor letrozole was used in all studies.Letrozole compared to clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without adjuncts followed by timed intercourseLive birth rates were higher with letrozole (with or without adjuncts) compared to clomiphene citrate (with our without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.99; 2954 participants; 13 studies; I² = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; moderate-quality evidence). There is high-quality evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or clomiphene citrate (0.5% in both arms: risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00; 2536 participants; 12 studies; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence). There is evidence for a higher pregnancy rate in favour of letrozole (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.78; 4629 participants; 25 studies; I² = 1%; NNTB = 10; moderate-quality evidence). There is little or no difference between treatment groups in the rate of miscarriage by pregnancy (20% with CC versus 19% with letrozole; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26; 1210 participants; 18 studies; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence) and multiple pregnancy rate (1.7% with CC versus 1.3% with letrozole; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.16; 3579 participants; 17 studies; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence). However, a funnel plot showed mild asymmetry, indicating that some studies in favour of clomiphene might be missing.Letrozole compared to laparoscopic ovarian drillingThere is low-quality evidence that live birth rates are similar with letrozole or laparoscopic ovarian drilling (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.02; 548 participants; 3 studies; I² = 23%; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence for a difference in OHSS rates (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 260 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). There is low-quality evidence that pregnancy rates are similar (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 774 participants; 5 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence for a difference in miscarriage rate by pregnancy (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.43; 240 participants; 5 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), or multiple pregnancies (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.90; 548 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).Additional comparisons were made for Letrozole versus placebo, Selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMS) followed by intrauterine insemination (IUI), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Anastrozole, as well as dosage and administration protocols. There is insufficient evidence for a difference in either group of treatment due to a limited number of studies. Hence more research is necessary.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Letrozole appears to improve live birth and pregnancy rates in subfertile women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome, compared to clomiphene citrate. There is high-quality evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or clomiphene citrate. There is high-quality evidence of no difference in miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates. There is low-quality evidence of no difference in live birth and pregnancy rates between letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling, although there were few relevant studies. For the 2018 update, we added good-quality trials, upgrading the quality of the evidence.