The Obesity-Fertility Protocol: a randomized controlled trial assessing clinical outcomes and costs of a transferable interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention, before and during pregnancy, in obese infertile women

Intra-patient analysis of individual weight gain or loss between IVF cycles: cycle now and transfer later

STUDY QUESTION

What is the impact of clinically significant weight change on outcomes related to IVF cycle performance?

SUMMARY ANSWER

While individual weight loss did not significantly impact ovarian response to stimulation or other cycle outcome parameters in our study, some positive associations were found for individual weight gain.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The role of weight-change in patients undergoing IVF has been largely studied by comparing weight loss in different cohorts of patients stratified by a static BMI. Specifically, obesity has been extensively studied in relation to its negative effects on assisted or unassisted conception outcomes and ovulatory function. Previous research has shown conflicting results, while BMI, which is commonly used as a marker of obesity, may not accurately reflect the underlying factors affecting fertility in obese patients.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This study utilized a retrospective within-patient repeated measurement analysis design to assess the impact of weight change on IVF outcomes in cycles where all embryos were cryopreserved at the blastocyst stage for transfer at a later date.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The study was conducted at an academically affiliated fertility center. The data included 961 women who underwent at least two IVF cycles between December 2014 and June 2020, with documented short-term weight gain (n = 607) or weight loss (n = 354) within 1 year from their initial IVF cycle. Multivariable generalized estimating equations (GEE) and generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were employed to assess associations between weight change and outcomes across cycles.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multivariable models indicated that weight loss did not show any significant associations with the numbers of oocytes retrieved, or mature oocytes, the fertilization rate or the blastulation rate. However, weight gain demonstrated a minor positive association with the number of oocytes retrieved in both GEE models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01) and GLMM models (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.00). There was also a potential increase in the fertilization rate with weight gain, as indicated by a positive coefficient in both GEE models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.02) and GLMM models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01). However, the association between weight gain and the embryo blastulation rate was not statistically significant in any model.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This study focused on cycle performance parameters instead of reproductive outcomes, which restricted our ability to evaluate the impact of weight change on cumulative live birth rates. Additionally, the study did not account for variables such as stimulation protocols, potentially introducing confounding factors and limiting the generalizability of the results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Although obesity is associated with adverse obstetrical risks, there is less evidence of adverse reproductive outcomes in IVF cycles. We therefore recommend that an IVF cycle should not be delayed due to weight, so that the patient is not adversely affected by increasing age. The IVF cycle should aim to freeze all embryos, so that embryo transfer can then occur after weight loss, so as to limit the recognized obstetrical risks.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was not funded and there were no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Mindfulness-based program to support lifestyle modification and weight loss in infertile women: randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the short-term effects of a mindfulness-based program (MBP) on weight loss through lifestyle modification in infertile women who were overweight or obese.

METHODS

The participants were randomly assigned to 8 consecutive weekly sessions of MBP plus diet or diet alone. Both groups received a customized dietary plan. Body measures were taken and a questionnaire was applied to evaluate dietary habits at baseline and three months later.

RESULTS

The study was completed by 28 women in the MBP group and 24 in the control group. Body weight decreased 1.8 kg (2.1%) in the MBP group (p = 0.001, follow-up vs. baseline) and 1.7 kg (1.9%) in the control group (p = 0.035). There was an average reduction of 2.9 cm of waist circumference in the MBP group (p = 0.008) and 0.3 cm in the control group (p = 0.633). There was a significant reduction in the daily energy intake of the women attending the MBP (mean difference -430 Kcal/day, p=0.010) whereas no significant change was observed in the control group.

CONCLUSION

In the short term, this MBP did not affect weight loss in infertile women, but the MBP intervention contributed to reduce waist circumference, possibly due to a significant decrease in food energy intake.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

RBR-7by76r.

Protocol of the Fit-For-Fertility study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing a lifestyle programme targeting women with obesity and infertility

INTRODUCTION

Women with obesity are at a higher risk of infertility as well as gestational and neonatal complications. Lifestyle changes are universally recommended for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments, but such intervention has only been assessed in very few robust studies. This study's objectives are therefore to assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention (the Fit-For-Fertility Programme; FFFP) targeting women with obesity and subfertility in a diverse population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) will include 616 women with obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m² or ≥27 kg/m² with polycystic ovary syndrome or at-risk ethnicities) who are evaluated at a Canadian fertility clinic for subfertility. Women will be randomised either to (1) the FFFP (experimental arm) alone for 6 months, and then in combination with usual care for infertility if not pregnant; or (2) directly to usual fertility care (control arm). Women in the intervention group benefit from the programme up to 18 months or, if pregnant, up to 24 months or the end of the pregnancy (whichever comes first). Women from both groups are evaluated every 6 months for a maximum of 18 months. The primary outcome is live birth rate at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include fertility, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes; lifestyle and anthropometric measures; and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data collected from focus groups of participants and professionals will also be analysed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research study has been approved by the Research Ethics Board (REB) of Centre intégré universtaire de santé et des services sociaux de l'Estrie-CHUS (research coordinating centre) on 10 December 2018 and has been or will be approved successively by each participating centres' REB. This pragmatic RCT will inform decision-makers on improving care trajectories and policies regarding fertility treatments for women with obesity and subfertility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03908099.

PROTOCOL VERSION

1.1, 13 April 2019.

Healthy for My Baby Research Protocol- a Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing a Preconception Intervention to Improve the Lifestyle of Overweight Women and Their Partners

Background: Preconception lifestyle interventions appear promising to reduce pregnancy complications, prevent adult cardiometabolic diseases, and prevent childhood obesity. These interventions have almost exclusively been studied in populations of obese infertile women. The development of preconception lifestyle interventions targeting a broader population of overweight and obese women without a history infertility and their partners is needed.

Methods: This study is a multicenter open label parallel group randomized controlled trial. Sixty-eight non-infertile women with overweight or obesity in the preconception period and their partners will be recruited from the Sherbrooke and Quebec City regions. The couples will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the Healthy for my Baby intervention or standard care in the preconception period and pregnancy. Women and their partners will be invited to take part in this lifestyle intervention which includes motivational interviews and daily self-monitoring of lifestyle goals through a mobile phone application. The primary endpoint of this study is the diet quality of women during the preconception period, which will be evaluated using the C-HEI 2007 score at baseline, 2, 4- and 6-months following study enrolment. Women's dietary quality will also be evaluated through the measure of urinary biomarkers of habitual dietary intake at baseline and 2 months in preconception, and 24–26 weeks in pregnancy. Additional indicators of women's lifestyle as well as anthropometric measures will be documented in preconception and pregnancy. For the pregnancy period, the main secondary endpoint is the pattern of gestational weight gain. Pregnancy and neonatal complications will also be evaluated. For partners, diet quality, other lifestyle habits, and anthropometric measures will be documented in the preconception and pregnancy periods.

Discussion: This study will evaluate the effectiveness of a low-cost intervention designed to improve diet and other lifestyle characteristics of women in the preconception period who are overweight or obese. If the Healthy for my Baby intervention is efficacious regarding dietary measures, larger trials will be needed to evaluate the impact of this intervention on the rates of pregnancy complications, childhood obesity, and adult cardiometabolic disease.

Clinical Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04242069).

Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility

BACKGROUND

Infertility is a prevalent problem that has significant consequences for individuals, families, and the community. Modifiable lifestyle factors may affect the chance of people with infertility having a baby. However, no guideline is available about what preconception advice should be offered. It is important to determine what preconception advice should be given to people with infertility and to evaluate whether this advice helps them make positive behavioural changes to improve their lifestyle and their chances of conceiving.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and effectiveness of preconception lifestyle advice on fertility outcomes and lifestyle behavioural changes for people with infertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, trial registers, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos in January 2021; we checked references and contacted field experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised cross-over studies, and cluster-randomised studies that compared at least one form of preconception lifestyle advice with routine care or attention control for people with infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary effectiveness outcomes were live birth and ongoing pregnancy. Primary safety outcomes were adverse events and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes included reported behavioural changes in lifestyle, birth weight, gestational age, clinical pregnancy, time to pregnancy, quality of life, and male factor infertility outcomes. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review seven RCTs involving 2130 participants. Only one RCT included male partners. Three studies compared preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics with routine care or attention control. Four studies compared preconception lifestyle advice on one topic (weight, alcohol intake, or smoking) with routine care for women with infertility and specific lifestyle characteristics. The evidence was of low to very low-quality. The main limitations of the included studies were serious risk of bias due to lack of blinding, serious imprecision, and poor reporting of outcome measures. Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics versus routine care or attention control Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of live births (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.10; 1 RCT, 626 participants), but the quality of evidence was low. No studies reported on adverse events or miscarriage. Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics affects lifestyle behavioural changes: body mass index (BMI) (mean difference (MD) -1.06 kg/m², 95% CI -2.33 to 0.21; 1 RCT, 180 participants), vegetable intake (MD 12.50 grams/d, 95% CI -8.43 to 33.43; 1 RCT, 264 participants), alcohol abstinence in men (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.58; 1 RCT, 210 participants), or smoking cessation in men (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 212 participants). Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of women with adequate folic acid supplement use (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01; 2 RCTs, 850 participants; I² = 4%), alcohol abstinence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.17; 1 RCT, 607 participants), and smoking cessation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 1 RCT, 606 participants), on low quality evidence. No studies reported on other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on weight versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on weight were identified only in women with infertility and obesity. Compared to routine care, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on weight affects the number of live births (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.43; 2 RCTs, 707 participants; I² = 68%; very low-quality evidence), adverse events including gestational diabetes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 317 participants; very low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.75; 1 RCT, 317 participants; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.37; 1 RCT, 577 participants; very low-quality evidence). Regarding lifestyle behavioural changes for women with infertility and obesity, preconception lifestyle advice on weight may slightly reduce BMI (MD -1.30 kg/m², 95% CI -1.58 to -1.02; 1 RCT, 574 participants; low-quality evidence). Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice affects the percentage of weight loss, vegetable and fruit intake, alcohol abstinence, or physical activity. No studies reported on other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake were identified only in at-risk drinking women with infertility. We are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake affects the number of live births (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.50; 1 RCT, 37 participants; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriages (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 8.34; 1 RCT, 37 participants; very low-quality evidence). One study reported on behavioural changes for alcohol consumption but not as defined in the review methods. No studies reported on adverse events or other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on smoking versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on smoking were identified only in smoking women with infertility. No studies reported on live birth, ongoing pregnancy, adverse events, or miscarriage. One study reported on behavioural changes for smoking but not as defined in the review methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of live births. Evidence was insufficient to allow conclusions on the effects of preconception lifestyle advice on adverse events and miscarriage and on safety, as no studies were found that looked at these outcomes, or the studies were of very low quality. This review does not provide clear guidance for clinical practice in this area. However, it does highlight the need for high-quality RCTs to investigate preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics and to assess relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes in men and women with infertility.

Effect of BMI on blood value of patients on HCG day with IUI treatment

BACKGROUND

This study aims to analyze the effect of the body mass index (BMI) on E₂, P and LH values in females who received intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment on human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) day.

METHODS

A total of 2319 cycles of IUI-assisted pregnancy treatment were selected in our hospital. Based on the BMI, female infertility patients are divided into three groups: normal weight group, overweight and obese group.

RESULTS

For patients with natural cycles and ≤ 35 years old, there were 440, 178 and 197 cases in the three groups, respectively. For patients with natural cycles and > 35 years old, there were 90, 83 and 81 cycles in the three groups, respectively. For patients with induced ovulation cycle and ≤ 35 years old, there were 425, 203 and 516 cases in the three groups, respectively. For patients with induced ovulation cycle and > 35 years old, there were 26, 26 and 54 cases in the three groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

When a patient is ≤35 years old, the BMI affects the E₂, LH and P values on the day of artificial insemination. However, the BMI is negatively correlated with E₂, LH and P in IUI on HCG day. After controlling for age and assisted pregnancy, the correlation analysis revealed that the BMI is negatively correlated with hormone E₂ and LH. The higher the BMI was, the lower the levels of hormones E₂, LH and P became. However, in the present study, the BMI did not significantly improve the clinical pregnancy rate of patients who received IUI.

The combined impact of maternal age and body mass index on cumulative live birth following in vitro fertilization

BACKGROUND

It is critical to evaluate the combined impact of age and body mass index on the cumulative likelihood of live birth following in vitro fertilization, as achieving a lower body mass index before infertility treatment often is recommended for women with overweight and obesity. It is important to consider whether achieving a particular body mass index, thus resulting in an older age at in vitro fertilization cycle start, is beneficial or harmful to the likelihood of live birth.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the combined impact of age and body mass index on the cumulative live birth rate following in vitro fertilization to inform when delaying in vitro fertilization treatment to achieve a lower body mass index may be beneficial or detrimental to the likelihood of live birth.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective study using linked fresh and cryopreserved/frozen cycles from January 2014 to December 2015 from the Society for Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System, representing >90% of in vitro fertilization cycles performed in the United States. The primary outcome was live birth as measured by cumulative live birth rate. Secondary outcomes included implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate. Poisson and logistic regression were used to calculate risk and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals to determine differences in implantation, clinical pregnancy, and miscarriage, as appropriate, among first fresh in vitro fertilization cycles compared across age (years) and body mass index (kg/m²) categories. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals to determine differences in the cumulative live birth rate using fresh plus linked frozen embryo transfer cycles.

RESULTS

There were 51,959 first fresh cycles using autologous eggs and 16,067 subsequent frozen embryo transfer cycles. There were 21,395 live births, for an overall cumulative live birth rate of 41.2% per cycle start. The implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and cumulative live birth rate decreased with increasing body mass index and age, and the miscarriage rate increased with increasing body mass index and age (linear trend P<.001 for all). Body mass index had a greater influence on live birth at younger ages as compared with older ages.

CONCLUSIONS

Age-related decline in fertility has a greater impact than body mass index on the cumulative live birth rate at older ages, suggesting that taking time to achieve lower body mass index before in vitro fertilization may be detrimental for older women with overweight or obesity. Delaying conception to lose weight before in vitro fertilization should be informed by the combination of age and body mass index.

Male partners of subfertile couples in which the spouse is obese display adverse weight and lifestyle associated with reduced sperm quality

OBJECTIVES

To assess: 1-the spousal concordance of lifestyle and anthropometric characteristics between partners of infertile couples in which the woman is obese; and 2-in men, the influence of these characteristics on their conventional seminal parameters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Fertility clinic of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Canada, between January 2012 and February 2015.

PATIENTS

97 infertile heterosexual couples in which women were obese and seeking fertility treatments.

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Weight and percentage of fat mass were evaluated using a scale with foot-to-foot bio-impedance. Abdominal obesity was estimated with waist circumference and lifestyle habits, by a self-reported questionnaire. Seminal parameters were analysed and collected according to the WHO guidelines (Kruger's strict criteria for seminal morphology).

RESULTS

There was a significant spousal concordance for the percentage of fat mass, leisure activities and overall nutritional quality. Accordingly, male participants displayed anthropometric and lifestyle characteristics at higher risk than Canadian men of similar age. Moreover, BMI, daily consumption of fruits & vegetables and sleeping hours in men were independently associated to the total motile sperm count.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to report concordance for anthropometric and lifestyle characteristics between partners of infertile couples in which the woman is obese. These characteristics in men were more adverse than in the general population and were associated with reduced sperm quality. Altogether, our results suggest that male partners of infertile couples could benefit from participating in the lifestyle intervention that is already recommended for their spouse affected by obesity.

CAPSULE

Because partners of subfertile couples in which the woman is obese share adverse anthropometric and lifestyle characteristics, male partners should be implicated in lifestyle interventions already indicated for their spouse.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women

STUDY QUESTION

What is the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment in obese infertile women?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women is not a cost-effective strategy in terms of healthy live birth rate within 24 months after randomization, but is more likely to be cost-effective using a longer follow-up period and live birth rate as endpoint.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In infertile couples, obesity decreases conception chances. We previously showed that lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women did not increase the healthy singleton vaginal live birth rate at term, but increased natural conceptions, especially in anovulatory women. Cost-effectiveness analyses could provide relevant additional information to guide decisions regarding offering a lifestyle intervention to obese infertile women.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment compared to prompt infertility treatment was evaluated based on data of a previous RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization (the healthy live birth rate). The economic evaluation was performed from a hospital perspective and included direct medical costs of the lifestyle intervention, infertility treatments, medication and pregnancy in the intervention and control group. In addition, we performed exploratory cost-effectiveness analyses of scenarios with additional effectiveness outcomes (overall live birth within 24 months and overall live birth conceived within 24 months) and of subgroups, i.e. of ovulatory and anovulatory women, women <36 years and ≥36 years of age and of completers of the lifestyle intervention. Bootstrap analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS

Infertile women with a BMI of ≥29 kg/m2 (no upper limit) were allocated to a 6-month lifestyle intervention programme preceding infertility treatment (intervention group, n = 290) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group, n = 287). After excluding women who withdrew informed consent or who were lost to follow-up we included 280 women in the intervention group and 284 women in the control group in the analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Total mean costs per woman in the intervention group within 24 months after randomization were €4324 (SD €4276) versus €5603 (SD €4632) in the control group (cost difference of -€1278, P < 0.05). Healthy live birth rates were 27 and 35% in the intervention group and the control group, respectively (effect difference of -8.1%, P < 0.05), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €15 845 per additional percentage increase of the healthy live birth rate. Mean costs per healthy live birth event were €15 932 in the intervention group and €15 912 in the control group. Exploratory scenario analyses showed that after changing the effectiveness outcome to all live births conceived within 24 months, irrespective of delivery within or after 24 months, cost-effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention improved. Using this effectiveness outcome, the probability that lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment was cost-effective in anovulatory women was 40%, in completers of the lifestyle intervention 39%, and in women ≥36 years 29%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

In contrast to the study protocol, we were not able to perform the analysis from a societal perspective. Besides the primary outcome of the LIFEstyle study, we performed exploratory analyses using outcomes observed at longer follow-up times and we evaluated subgroups of women; the trial was not powered on these additional outcomes or subgroup analyses.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention is more likely for longer follow-up times, and with live births conceived within 24 months as the effectiveness outcome. This effect was most profound in anovulatory women, in completers of the lifestyle intervention and in women ≥36 years old. This result indicates that the follow-up period of lifestyle interventions in obese infertile women is important. The scenario analyses performed in this study suggest that offering and reimbursing lifestyle intervention programmes in certain patient categories may be cost-effective and it provides directions for future research in this field.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The department of obstetrics and gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC = 1530.

Reproductive alterations in hyperinsulinemic but normoandrogenic MSG obese female rats

Obesity and metabolic syndrome are the common causes of reproductive and fertility disorders in women. In particular, polycystic ovary syndrome, which is clinically characterized by hyperandrogenism, oligo/anovulation, and polycystic ovarian morphology, has been increasingly associated with metabolic disorders. However, given the broad interplay between metabolic and reproductive functions, this remains a field of intense research. In this study, we investigated the effect of monosodium l-glutamate (MSG)-induced obesity on reproductive biology of female rats. Newborn female rats were subcutaneously injected with MSG (4g/kg/day) or equiosmolar saline (CTR) each 2 days up to postnatal day (pnd) 10. On pnd 60, estrous cycle was evaluated using vaginal smears twice a day for 15 days, which showed MSG rats to be oligocyclic. Thereafter, animals were killed on estrous phase for blood and tissue collection. MSG rats had increased body mass, accumulation of retroperitoneal and visceral fat pads, and visceral adipocyte hypertrophy compared with CTR rats. MSG rats were also dyslipidemic and hyperinsulinemic but were normoglycemic and normoandrogenic. Ovarian morphology analysis showed that MSG rats had a two-fold decrease in oocyte count but a six-fold increase on ovarian follicular cysts, along with a higher number of total primordial and atretic follicles. Moreover, MSG rats had a four-fold increase in anti-Müllerian hormone immunohistochemical staining on antral follicles. Taken together, data presented here characterize MSG obesity as a unique model to study the metabolic pathways underlying reproductive disorders in the absence of overactivated hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.