The comparative effectiveness of 55 interventions in obese patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: A network meta-analysis of 101 randomized trials

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 19;16(7):e0254412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254412. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Background: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects up to 18% of reproductive-age females. The prevalence of obesity in PCOS patients reaches up to 80%, which is 2-fold higher than the general population.

Objective: The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 55 pharmacological interventions across 17 different outcomes in overweight/obese PCOS patients with hyperandrogenism manifestations for both short- and long-term follow-ups. A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials comparing any conventional pharmacological intervention as a monotherapy or a combination in overweight/obese patients with polycystic ovary syndrome and hyperandrogenism manifestations. Extracted data included three main parameters; I. Anthropometric parameters (BMI, Waist and Hip circumferences, and Waist/HIP ratio), II. Hormonal parameters (FSH, LH, FSG, SHBG, Estradiol, Total Testosterone, Free testosterone, DHEAS, Androstenedione), and III. Metabolic parameters (Total Cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C, Triglycerides, Fasting glucose, Fasting glucose, HOMA-IR). Critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments were performed using the modified Jadad scale, and the overall quality of this network meta-analysis was evaluated according to the CINeMA framework. We performed both a pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis to evaluate the effect sizes with 95% CI, and we calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each intervention.

Results: Our final search on May 15th 2021 retrieved 23,305 unique citations from searching six electronic databases. Eventually, 101 RCTs of 108 reports with a total of 8,765 patients were included in our systematic review and multi-treatments meta-analysis. 55 different interventions were included: 22 monotherapies, and 33 combinations. The two-dimensional cluster ranking of the average SUCRA values for metabolic and hormonal parameters with significant estimates revealed flutamide (77.5%, 70%; respectively) as the highest and rosiglitazone (38.2%, 26.3%; respectively) as the lowest, in terms of the overall efficacy in reducing weight and hyperandrogenism. However, cyproterone-acetate+ethinylestradiol exhibited a higher ranking in improving hormonal parameters (71.1%), but even a lower-ranking regarding metabolic parameters (34.5%).

Conclusions and relevance: Current evidence demonstrated the superiority of flutamide in improving both metabolic and hormonal parameters, and the higher efficacy of cyproterone-acetate+ethinylestradiol only in improving hormonal parameters. Nearly all interventions were comparable in female hormones, FGS, HDL, glucose, and insulin levels improvements.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Body Mass Index
  • Cholesterol, LDL / blood
  • Cyproterone Acetate / therapeutic use*
  • Drug Combinations
  • Ethinyl Estradiol / therapeutic use*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Hyperandrogenism / blood*
  • Hyperandrogenism / complications
  • Hyperandrogenism / drug therapy
  • Hyperandrogenism / pathology
  • Network Meta-Analysis
  • Obesity
  • Overweight / blood*
  • Overweight / complications
  • Overweight / drug therapy
  • Overweight / pathology
  • Polycystic Ovary Syndrome / blood*
  • Polycystic Ovary Syndrome / complications
  • Polycystic Ovary Syndrome / drug therapy
  • Polycystic Ovary Syndrome / pathology
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Testosterone / blood
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Triglycerides / blood
  • Waist-Hip Ratio

Substances

  • Cholesterol, LDL
  • Drug Combinations
  • Triglycerides
  • Testosterone
  • Ethinyl Estradiol
  • Cyproterone Acetate
  • Cyproterone acetate, ethinyl estradiol drug combination

Grants and funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors received no specific funding for this work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.