Although the current literature associates polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) with chronic inflammation, the evidence for this link remains inconclusive and its causal nature remains unclear. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the inflammatory status in PCOS women and to determine whether it is related to PCOS or to its associated adiposity. We searched electronic databases including PUBMED, EMBASE and MEDLINE, SCOPUS, DynaMed plus, TRIP, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library, for studies investigating C-reactive protein (CRP) and other inflammatory makers in PCOS women versus healthy controls. Quality and risk of bias for selected studies were assessed using the modified Newcastle–Ottawa scale. CRP data were extracted and pooled using RevMan for calculation of the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Eighty-five eligible studies were included in the systematic review, of which 63 were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of the 63 studies revealed significantly higher circulating CRP in PCOS women (n = 4086) versus controls (n = 3120) (SMD 1.26, 95%CI, 0.99, 1.53). Sensitivity meta-analysis of 35 high quality studies including non-obese women showed significantly higher circulating CRP in PCOS women versus controls (SMD 1.80, 95%CI, 1.36, 2.25). In conclusion, circulating CRP is moderately elevated in PCOS women independent of obesity, which is indicative of low-grade chronic inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most frequent cause of anovulatory infertility. In women with PCOS, effective ovulation induction serves as an important first-line treatment for anovulatory infertility. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis is considered as the gold standard for evidence synthesis which provides accurate assessments of outcomes from primary randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and allows additional analyses for time-to-event outcomes. It also facilitates treatment–covariate interaction analyses and therefore offers an opportunity for personalised medicine. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different ovulation induction agents, in particular letrozole alone and clomiphene citrate (CC) plus metformin, as compared to CC alone, as the first-line choice for ovulation induction in women with PCOS and infertility, and to explore interactions between treatment and participant-level baseline characteristics. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 20 December 2018. We included RCTs comparing the following interventions with each other or placebo/no treatment in women with PCOS and infertility: CC, metformin, CC plus metformin, letrozole, gonadotrophin and tamoxifen. We excluded studies on treatment-resistant women. The primary outcome was live birth. We contacted the investigators of eligible RCTs to share the IPD and performed IPD meta-analyses. We assessed the risk of bias by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. OUTCOMES: IPD of 20 RCTs including 3962 women with PCOS were obtained. Six RCTs compared letrozole and CC in 1284 women. Compared with CC, letrozole improved live birth rates (3 RCTs, 1043 women, risk ratio [RR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–1.75, moderate-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy rates (6 RCTs, 1284 women, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.23–1.70, moderate-certainty evidence) and reduced time-to-pregnancy (6 RCTs, 1235 women, hazard ratio [HR] 1.72, 95% CI 1.38–2.15, moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses of effect modifications showed a positive interaction between baseline serum total testosterone levels and treatment effects on live birth (interaction RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01–1.65). Eight RCTs compared CC plus metformin to CC alone in 1039 women. Compared with CC alone, CC plus metformin might improve clinical pregnancy rates (8 RCTs, 1039 women, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00–1.39, low-certainty evidence) and might reduce time-to-pregnancy (7 RCTs, 898 women, HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00–1.57, low-certainty evidence), but there was insufficient evidence of a difference on live birth rates (5 RCTs, 907 women, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87–1.35, low-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses of effect modifications showed a positive interaction between baseline insulin levels and treatment effects on live birth in the comparison between CC plus metformin and CC (interaction RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.06). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: In women with PCOS, letrozole improves live birth and clinical pregnancy rates and reduces time-to-pregnancy compared to CC and therefore can be recommended as the preferred first-line treatment for women with PCOS and infertility. CC plus metformin may increase clinical pregnancy and may reduce time-to-pregnancy compared to CC alone, while there is insufficient evidence of a difference on live birth. Treatment effects of letrozole are influenced by baseline serum levels of total testosterone, while those of CC plus metformin are affected by baseline serum levels of insulin. These interactions between treatments and biomarkers on hyperandrogenaemia and insulin resistance provide further insights into a personalised approach for the management of anovulatory infertility related to PCOS.

Would letrozole as a primary ovulation induction agent generate better pregnancy rates than clomiphene citrate (CC) in subfertile women with anovulatory polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)? Participants receiving letrozole as a primary treatment achieved a significantly (P = 0.022) higher clinical pregnancy rate per patient (61.2%) compared to CC (43.0%). According to a recent Cochrane systematic review (2014), letrozole appears to improve live-birth (LB) and pregnancy rates in anovulatory women with PCOS, compared to CC. However, the review concluded that the quality of evidence was low due to poor reporting of study methods and possible publication bias. This double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 159 participants between April 2007 and June 2014. Subjects were randomly allocated to either CC (n = 79) or letrozole (n = 80) in a 1:1 ratio. Both drugs were encapsulated to look identical. Randomization was performed in mixed blocks and stratified by patients’ BMI ( 35 kg/m², which would limit the applicability of the results in this subgroup of PCOS. However, this group of women are generally excluded from treatment in the majority of fertility centres, especially in Europe, due to the associated challenges and risks. The results of this trial are consistent with the recent Cochrane systematic review. However, with its robust design, the current RCT provides more valid and compelling evidence for the superiority of letrozole over CC as a primary ovulation induction agent in PCOS women with 40% increase in pregnancy rates and with a shorter time-to-pregnancy. Furthermore, the participants in this RCT are a good representation of subfertile PCOS population receiving fertility treatment in Europe and worldwide. The results are therefore globally generalizable for clinical practice. This RCT was mainly funded by the R&D Funding Scheme of Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The study also received funds from School of Medicine, University of Nottingham. The Trust R&D department was involved in the development of the protocol and the running of the trial. The trial was sponsored and monitored by the University of Nottingham. The authors have no conflicts of interest. www.Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00478504. Registration was verified on 23/05/2007. 25/04/2007.

Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The aim of this study was to measure circulating AMH before laparoscopic ovarian diathermy (LOD) to evaluate its prognostic value for an ovulatory response and to investigate AMH changes after LOD to further explore the effects of LOD. This prospective study included anovulatory women with PCOS undergoing LOD (n = 29) or receiving clomiphene citrate (n = 18). Plasma AMH concentrations were measured before and 1 week after treatment. Further measurements of AMH were made at 3- and 6-month follow-up. The pretreatment median (range) plasma AMH concentrations were 6.1 (1.0–21.0) and 5.7 (1.3–9.5) ng/ml in women having LOD and clomiphene citrate treatment, respectively. Women who ovulated after LOD (n = 24) had a significantly (P = 0.032) lower pre-operative AMH [5.6 (1.0–21.0) ng/ml] compared with the non-responders [9.0 (6.1–17.1) ng/ml]. Using receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, AMH was found to be a useful predictor of no ovulation after LOD with area under the curve of 0.804 (P = 0.025). Using a cut-off of 7.7 ng/ml, AMH had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 76% in the prediction of no ovulation after LOD. For all patients (n = 47, clomiphene citrate or LOD), plasma AMH ≥7.7 ng/ml was associated with a reduced chance of ovulation after treatment (P = 0.004). Following LOD, the median AMH concentration significantly (P = 0.003) decreased to 4.7 (0.3–15.1) ng/ml and remained low at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Pretreatment circulating AMH level seems to be a good predictor of the ovarian response to LOD.

Laparoscopic ovarian diathermy (LOD) is currently accepted as a successful second-line treatment for ovulation induction (OI) in clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that LOD may be superior to CC as a first-line treatment. The study included 72 anovulatory women with PCOS who were randomized to LOD (n = 36) or CC (n = 36). Women who remained anovulatory after LOD were offered CC. Similarly, women receiving CC who failed to ovulate or conceive were offered LOD. Pregnancy rates were compared between the two groups using χ² and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (OR, 95% CI). After randomization, six women conceived before starting treatment and another patient postponed treatment. The remaining 65 women received the treatment (33 underwent LOD and 32 received CC). After the primary treatment, more pregnancies (44%) occurred in women receiving CC than in those undergoing LOD (27%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance [P = 0.13, OR 2.1 (0.7 – 5.8)]. After adding the second treatment, the pregnancy rate was still higher, but to a less extent, in the CC group [63% versus 52%, P = 0.2, OR 1.6 (0.6 – 4.2)]. LOD is not superior to CC as a first-line method of OI in women with PCOS. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with an identifier number NCT00220545.