The effects of a low-calorie diet or an isocaloric diet combined with metformin on sex hormones In obese women of child-bearing age

The Effect of a Very-Low-Calorie Diet (VLCD) vs. a Moderate Energy Deficit Diet in Obese Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)-A Randomised Controlled Trial

We performed an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare the effects of a very-low-calorie diet (VLCD) vs. moderate energy deficit approach on body weight, body composition, free androgen index (FAI), and metabolic markers in obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Forty eligible patients were randomly assigned to a VLCD (n = 21) or a conventional energy deficit approach (n = 19) over the same period. After eight weeks, both groups experienced significant weight loss; however, this was greater in the VLCD arm (-10.9% vs. -3.9%, p < 0.0001). There was also a trend towards a reduction in FAI in the VLCD group compared to the energy deficit group (-32.3% vs. -7.7%, p = 0.07). In the VLCD arm, two women (18%) had a biochemical remission of PCOS (FAI < 4); this was not the case for any of the participants in the energy deficit arm. There was a significant within-group increase in the sex-hormone-binding globulin (p = 0.002) and reductions in fasting blood glucose (p = 0.010) and waist to hip ratio (p = 0.04) in the VLCD arm, but not in the energy deficit arm. The VLCD resulted in significantly greater weight reduction and was accompanied by more pronounced improvements in hyperandrogenaemia, body composition, and several metabolic parameters in obese women with PCOS as compared to the energy deficit approach.

Effects of a Dulaglutide plus Calorie-Restricted Diet versus a Calorie-Restricted Diet on Visceral Fat and Metabolic Profiles in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The effects of dulaglutide and a calorie-restricted diet (CRD) on visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and metabolic profiles in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have not been extensively investigated. In this study, we investigated whether dulaglutide combined with CRD could further reduce VAT and promote clinical benefits as compared with a CRD regimen alone in overweight or obese PCOS-affected women. Between May 2021 and May 2022, this single-center, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial was conducted. Overall, 243 participants with PCOS were screened, of which 68 overweight or obese individuals were randomly randomized to undergo dulaglutide combined with CRD treatment (n = 35) or CRD treatment alone (n = 33). The duration of intervention was set as the time taken to achieve a 7% weight loss goal from baseline body weight, which was restricted to 6 months. The primary endpoint was the difference in the change in VAT area reduction between the groups. The secondary endpoints contained changes in menstrual frequency, metabolic profiles, hormonal parameters, liver fat, and body composition. As compared with the CRD group, the dulaglutide + CRD group had a considerably shorter median time to achieve 7% weight loss. There was no significant between-group difference in area change of VAT reduction (-0.97 cm², 95% confidence interval from -14.36 to 12.42, p = 0.884). As compared with CRD alone, dulaglutide + CRD had significant advantages in reducing glycated hemoglobin A1c and postprandial plasma glucose levels. The results of the analyses showed different changes in menstruation frequency, additional metabolic profiles, hormonal markers, liver fat, and body composition between the two groups did not differ significantly. Nausea, vomiting, constipation, and loss of appetite were the main adverse events of dulaglutide. These results emphasize the value of dietary intervention as the first line of treatment for PCOS-affected women, while glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist therapy provides an efficient and typically well tolerated adjuvant therapy to aid in reaching weight targets based on dietary therapy in the population of overweight/obese PCOS-affected women.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for obese women with subfertility

BACKGROUND

Clinicians primarily recommend weight loss for obese women seeking pregnancy. The effectiveness of interventions aimed at weight loss in obese women with subfertility is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies compared with each other, placebo, or no treatment for achieving weight loss in obese women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CGF Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED from inception to 18 August 2020. We also checked reference lists and contacted experts in the field for additional relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials in which weight loss was the main goal of the intervention. Our primary effectiveness outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and primary safety outcomes were miscarriage and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, weight change, quality of life, and mental health outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 10 trials. Evidence was of very low to low quality: the main limitations were due to lack of studies and poor reporting of study methods. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were lack of details by which to judge risk of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment), lack of blinding, and imprecision. Non-pharmacological intervention versus no intervention or placebo Evidence is insufficient to determine whether a diet or lifestyle intervention compared to no intervention affects live birth (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.11; 918 women, 3 studies; I² = 78%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 43%, the chance following diet or lifestyle changes would be 33% to 46%. We are uncertain if lifestyle change compared with no intervention affects miscarriage rate (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.39; 917 women, 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to determine whether lifestyle change compared with no intervention affects clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.40; 917 women, 3 studies; I² = 73%; low-quality evidence). Lifestyle intervention resulted in a decrease in body mass index (BMI), but data were not pooled due to heterogeneity in effect (mean difference (MD) -3.70, 95% CI -4.10 to -3.30; 305 women, 1 study; low-quality evidence; and MD -1.80, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.93; 43 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Non-pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention We are uncertain whether intensive weight loss interventions compared to standard care nutrition counselling affects live birth (OR 11.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 284; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 11.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 284; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), BMI (MD -3.00, 95% CI -5.37 to -0.63; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), weight change (MD -9.00, 95% CI -15.50 to -2.50; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), quality of life (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or mental health (MD -7.00, 95% CI -13.92 to -0.08; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on adverse events . Pharmacological versus pharmacological intervention For metformin plus liraglutide compared to metformin we are uncertain of an effect on the adverse events nausea (OR 7.22, 95% CI 0.72 to 72.7; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), diarrhoea (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.3; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), and headache (OR 5.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 133; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if a combination of metformin plus liraglutide vs metformin affects BMI (MD 2.1, 95% CI -0.42 to 2.62; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) and total body fat (MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.65 to 3.65; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). For metformin, clomiphene, and L-carnitine versus metformin, clomiphene, and placebo, we are uncertain of an effect on miscarriage (OR 3.58, 95% CI 0.73 to 17.55; 274 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 5.56, 95% CI 2.57 to 12.02; 274 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or BMI (MD -0.3, 95% CI 1.17 to 0.57, 274 women, 1 study, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if dexfenfluramine versus placebo affects weight loss in kilograms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.77 to 2.57; 21 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on live birth, quality of life, or mental health outcomes. Pharmacological intervention versus no intervention or placebo We are uncertain if metformin compared with placebo affects live birth (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.57; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following placebo is assumed to be 15%, the chance following metformin would be 7% to 50%. We are uncertain if metformin compared with placebo affects gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.57; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.80; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 2.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.93; 96 women, 2 studies; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain if diet combined with metformin versus diet and placebo affects BMI (MD -0.30, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.56; 143 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.21 to 6.21; 143 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention No study undertook this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to support the use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for obese women with subfertility. No data are available for the comparison of pharmacological versus non-pharmacological strategies. We are uncertain whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological strategies effect live birth, ongoing pregnancy, adverse events, clinical pregnancy, quality of life, or mental heath outcomes. However, for obese women with subfertility, a lifestyle intervention may reduce BMI. Future studies should compare a combination of pharmacological and lifestyle interventions for obese women with subfertility.