1
|
Ovarian Drilling: Back to the Future. Medicina (B Aires) 2022; 58:medicina58081002. [PMID: 36013469 PMCID: PMC9416052 DOI: 10.3390/medicina58081002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2022] [Revised: 07/20/2022] [Accepted: 07/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the leading cause of anovulatory infertility. The complex metabolic dysregulation at the base of this syndrome often renders infertility management challenging. Many pharmacological strategies have been applied for the induction of ovulation with a non-negligible rate of severe complications such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. Ovarian drilling (OD) is currently being adopted as a second-line treatment, to be performed in case of medical therapy. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), the contemporary version of ovarian wedge resection, is considered effective for gonadotropins in terms of live birth rates, but without the risks of iatrogenic complications in gonadotropin therapy. Its endocrinal effects are longer lasting and, after the accomplishment of this procedure, ovarian responsiveness to successive ovulation induction agents is enhanced. Traditional LOD, however, is burdened by the potential risks of iatrogenic adhesions and decreased ovarian reserve and, therefore, should only be considered in selected cases. To overcome these limits, novel tailored and mini-invasive approaches, which are still waiting for wide acceptance, have been introduced, although their role is still not well-clarified and none of them have provided enough evidence in terms of efficacy and safety.
Collapse
|
2
|
Bordewijk EM, Wang R, Askie LM, Gurrin LC, Thornton JG, van Wely M, Li W, Mol BW. Data integrity of 35 randomised controlled trials in women’ health. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 249:72-83. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2020] [Revised: 03/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
3
|
Bordewijk EM, Ng KYB, Rakic L, Mol BWJ, Brown J, Crawford TJ, van Wely M. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 2:CD001122. [PMID: 32048270 PMCID: PMC7013239 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001122.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esmée M Bordewijk
- Amsterdam UMC, University of AmsterdamCenter for Reproductive MedicineAmsterdamNetherlands1105 AZ
| | - Ka Ying Bonnie Ng
- University of SouthamptonSchool of Human Development and HealthSouthamptonUKSO16 6YD
| | - Lidija Rakic
- Amsterdam UMC, University of AmsterdamCenter for Reproductive MedicineAmsterdamNetherlands1105 AZ
| | - Ben Willem J Mol
- Monash UniversityDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology246 Clayton RoadClaytonVictoriaAustralia3168
| | | | - Tineke J Crawford
- The University of AucklandLiggins Institute85 Park RoadGraftonAucklandNew Zealand1023
| | - Madelon van Wely
- Amsterdam UMC, University of AmsterdamCenter for Reproductive MedicineAmsterdamNetherlands1105 AZ
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sawant S, Bhide P. Fertility Treatment Options for Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. CLINICAL MEDICINE INSIGHTS. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 2019; 13:1179558119890867. [PMID: 31908561 PMCID: PMC6935873 DOI: 10.1177/1179558119890867] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2019] [Accepted: 10/29/2019] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome is the most common endocrinological disorder in women of reproductive age. It is commonly associated with anovulatory subfertility, for which there are a range of treatment options available to help them conceive. These options are given in a step-wise manner with an appropriate selection of patients to maximise success rates with minimal complications. This review discusses the importance and involvement of multidisciplinary care when offering treatment to women with subfertility. Multidisciplinary care gives an excellent opportunity to identify, assess risk, and potentially prevent future morbidities and complications while treating women for fertility issues. We have also summarised the various options available for fertility treatment: pharmacological treatments, nonpharmacological intervention, and assisted reproductive technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shital Sawant
- Homerton Fertility Centre, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK
| | - Priya Bhide
- Homerton Fertility Centre, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK.,Queen Mary University of London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Costello MF, Garad RM, Hart R, Homer H, Johnson L, Jordan C, Mocanu E, Qiao J, Rombauts L, Teede HJ, Vanky E, Venetis CA, Ledger WL. A Review of Second- and Third-line Infertility Treatments and Supporting Evidence in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Med Sci (Basel) 2019; 7:E75. [PMID: 31247909 PMCID: PMC6681353 DOI: 10.3390/medsci7070075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2019] [Revised: 06/13/2019] [Accepted: 06/20/2019] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
In clomiphene-citrate-resistant anovulatory women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and no other infertility factors, either metformin combined with clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins could be used as a second-line pharmacological therapy, although gonadotrophins are more effective. Gonadotrophins could also be used as a second-line pharmacological therapy in anovulatory women with PCOS and clomiphene-citrate-failure. Laparoscopic ovarian surgery can also be used as a second-line therapy for ovulation induction in anovulatory women with clomiphene-citrate-resistant PCOS and no other infertility factors. The usefulness of letrozole as a second-line pharmacological treatment for ovulation induction in clomiphene-citrate-resistant women with PCOS requires further research. In terms of improving fertility, both pharmacological anti-obesity agents and bariatric surgery should be considered an experimental therapy in anovulatory women with PCOS and no other infertility factors. Where first- or second-line ovulation induction therapies have failed, in vitro fertilization (IVF)/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) could be offered as a third-line therapy in women with PCOS in the absence of an absolute indication for IVF/ICSI. For women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol is preferred and an elective frozen embryo transfer strategy could be considered. In assisted conception units with sufficient expertise, in-vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes could be offered to women with PCOS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael F Costello
- University of New South Wales, High St. Kensington, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
| | - Rhonda M Garad
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University and Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia.
| | - Roger Hart
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Western Australia, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6008, Australia.
| | - Hayden Homer
- Christopher Chen Oocyte Biology Research Laboratory, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4029, Australia.
| | - Louise Johnson
- Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
| | | | - Edgar Mocanu
- Royal College of Surgeons, Rotunda Hospital, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland.
| | - Jie Qiao
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical Center for Human Reproduction, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
| | - Luk Rombauts
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne 3168, Australia.
| | - Helena J Teede
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University and Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia.
- National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, Monash University, Melbourne 3168, VIC, Australia.
- National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5006, SA, Australia.
- University of New South Wales, Sydney 2033, NSW, Australia.
| | - Eszter Vanky
- Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 1517 Trondheim, Norway.
| | - Christos A Venetis
- University of New South Wales, High St. Kensington, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
| | - William L Ledger
- University of New South Wales, High St. Kensington, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Costello MF, Misso ML, Balen A, Boyle J, Devoto L, Garad RM, Hart R, Johnson L, Jordan C, Legro RS, Norman RJ, Mocanu E, Qiao J, Rodgers RJ, Rombauts L, Tassone EC, Thangaratinam S, Vanky E, Teede HJ. Evidence summaries and recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome: assessment and treatment of infertility. Hum Reprod Open 2019; 2019:hoy021. [PMID: 31486807 PMCID: PMC6396642 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoy021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2018] [Accepted: 12/13/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M F Costello
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, High St, Kensington, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - M L Misso
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.,Monash Health, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A Balen
- Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Leeds Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - J Boyle
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.,Monash Health, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia
| | - L Devoto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - R M Garad
- Monash Health, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia.,National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | - R Hart
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - L Johnson
- Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, Victoria, Australia
| | - C Jordan
- Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, Victoria, Australia.,Genea Hollywood Fertility, 190 Cambridge St, Wembley WA, Australia
| | - R S Legro
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State University College of Medicine, USA
| | - R J Norman
- National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - E Mocanu
- Royal College of Surgeons, Rotunda Hospital, 123 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, Ireland
| | - J Qiao
- Peking University Third Hospital, Haidian Qu, Beijing Shi, China
| | - R J Rodgers
- Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide and Fertility SA, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - L Rombauts
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Victoria 3168, Australia
| | - E C Tassone
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.,Monash Health, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia
| | - S Thangaratinam
- Barts Research Centre for Women's Health (BARC), Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - E Vanky
- Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - H J Teede
- Monash Health, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia.,National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lepine S, Jo J, Metwally M, Cheong YC. Ovarian surgery for symptom relief in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 11:CD009526. [PMID: 29125183 PMCID: PMC6486107 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009526.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sam Lepine
- Capital and Coast District Health BoardDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyWellingtonNew Zealand
| | - Junyoung Jo
- Conmaul Hospital of Korean MedicineDepartment of Korean Obstetrics and GynecologyFl. 5, Lotte Castle Medici, 1656‐4, Seocho‐dong, Seocho‐guSeoulKorea, South
| | - Mostafa Metwally
- Sheffield Teaching HospitalsThe Jessop Wing and Royal Hallamshire HospitalSheffieldUKS10 2JF
| | - Ying C Cheong
- University of SouthamptonDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyLevel F, Princess Anne HospitalCoxford RoadSouthamptonUKSO16 5YA
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Comparative effectiveness of 9 ovulation-induction therapies in patients with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome: a network meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2017. [PMID: 28630466 PMCID: PMC5476620 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-03803-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
9
|
Tannus S, Burke YZ, Kol S. Treatment Strategies for the Infertile Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patient. WOMENS HEALTH 2015; 11:901-12. [DOI: 10.2217/whe.15.40] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder in women of reproductive age. Infertility is a prevalent presenting feature of PCOS, and approximately 75% of these women suffer infertility due to anovulation. Lifestyle modification is considered the first-line treatment and is associated with improved endocrine profile. Clomiphene citrate (CC) should be considered as the first line pharmacologic therapy for ovulation induction. In women who are CC resistant, second-line treatment should be considered, as adding metformin, laparoscopic ovarian drilling or treatment with gonadotropins. In CC treatment failure, Letrozole could be an alternative or treatment with gonadotropins. IVF is considered the third-line treatment; the ‘short’, antagonist-based protocol is the preferred option for PCOS patients, as it is associated with lower risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (specifically by using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist as ovulation trigger), but with comparable outcomes as the long protocol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samer Tannus
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
| | - Yechiel Z Burke
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
| | - Shahar Kol
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mitra S, Nayak PK, Agrawal S. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling: An alternative but not the ultimate in the management of polycystic ovary syndrome. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2015; 6:40-8. [PMID: 25810633 PMCID: PMC4367066 DOI: 10.4103/0976-9668.149076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Subarna Mitra
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
| | - Prasanta Kumar Nayak
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
| | - Sarita Agrawal
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Abu Hashim H, Al-Inany H, De Vos M, Tournaye H. Three decades after Gjönnaess’s laparoscopic ovarian drilling for treatment of PCOS; what do we know? An evidence-based approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 288:409-22. [DOI: 10.1007/s00404-013-2808-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2012] [Accepted: 03/12/2013] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
12
|
Farquhar C, Brown J, Marjoribanks J. Laparoscopic drilling by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012:CD001122. [PMID: 22696324 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001122.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cindy Farquhar
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Baghdadi LR, Abu Hashim H, Amer SAK, Palomba S, Falbo A, Al-Ojaimi E, Ott J, Zhu W, Fernandez H, Nasr A, Ramzy AM, Clark J, Doi SAR. Impact of obesity on reproductive outcomes after ovarian ablative therapy in PCOS: a collaborative meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25:227-41. [PMID: 22809865 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2012] [Revised: 05/16/2012] [Accepted: 05/17/2012] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Obesity is known to interfere with reproductive outcomes in polycystic ovary syndrome. There is no consensus regarding the impact of obesity on reproductive outcomes after ovarian ablative therapy (OAT) and there is no level I evidence to answer this question. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the strength of the association between obesity and ovulation or pregnancy rates after OAT. MEDLINE and several other databases were searched from 2000 to September 2011 for studies reporting on OAT and reproductive outcomes. Data were synthesized to determine the relative risk of reproductive outcomes (ovulation and pregnancy) in lean (body mass index <25 kg/m(2)) compared with overweight or obese women. The study obtained 15 data sets (14 articles) for analysis, which included 905 subjects in the obese group and 879 subjects in the lean group. Lean women had increased ovulation rates (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22-1.66) compared with obese women. Pregnancy rates also showed a similar trend (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.39-2.17). Reproductive outcomes were generally better in younger women, more recent studies and randomized controlled trials. It is concluded that lean women respond better to OAT than their obese counterparts. These epidemiological observations indicate that obesity alters reproductive outcomes after OAT negatively. Obesity is known to interfere with reproductive outcomes in polycystic ovary syndrome. There is no consensus regarding the impact of obesity on ovarian ablative therapy (OAT) and there is no level I evidence to answer this question. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the strength of the association between obesity and ovulation or pregnancy rates after OAT. We searched MEDLINE and several other databases from 2000 to September 2011 for studies reporting on OAT and reproductive outcomes. Data were synthesized to determine the risk ratio of reproductive outcomes (ovulation and pregnancy) in lean (BMI <25 kg/m(2)) as opposed to overweight or obese women. We obtained 15 datasets (14 articles) for analysis, which included 905 subjects in the obese group and 879 subjects in the lean group. Lean women had increased ovulation rates (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22-1.66) as compared to obese women. Pregnancy rates also showed a similar trend (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.39-2.17). Reproductive outcomes were generally better in younger women, more recent studies and randomized controlled trials. We conclude that lean women respond better to OAT than their obese counterparts. These epidemiological observations indicate that obesity alters reproductive outcomes after OAT negatively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leena R Baghdadi
- School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abu Hashim H. Clomiphene citrate alternatives for the initial management of polycystic ovary syndrome: an evidence-based approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 285:1737-45. [DOI: 10.1007/s00404-012-2261-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2011] [Accepted: 02/16/2012] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
15
|
Shokeir T. Laparoscopic ovarian diathermy after clomiphene failure in polycystic ovary syndrome: is it worthwhile? A randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 284:1593. [PMID: 21842175 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-011-2054-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2011] [Accepted: 08/01/2011] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
|