RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of anovulatory infertility. Obesity exacerbates the reproductive complications of PCOS; however, the management of obesity in women with PCOS remains a large unmet clinical need. Observational studies have indicated that bariatric surgery could improve the rates of ovulatory cycles and prospects of fertility; however, the efficacy of surgery on ovulation rates has not yet been compared with behavioural modifications and medical therapy in a randomised trial. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery versus medical care on ovulation rates in women with PCOS, obesity, and oligomenorrhoea or amenorrhoea. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, 80 women older than 18 years, with a diagnosis of PCOS based on the 2018 international evidence-based guidelines for assessing and managing PCOS, and a BMI of 35 kg/m2 or higher, were recruited from two specialist obesity management centres and via social media. Participants were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either vertical sleeve gastrectomy or behavioural interventions and medical therapy using a computer-generated random sequence (PLAN procedure in SAS) by an independent researcher not involved with any other aspect of the clinical trial. The median age of the entire cohort was 31 years and 79% of participants were White. The primary outcome was the number of biochemically confirmed ovulatory events over 52 weeks, and was assessed using weekly serum progesterone measurements. The primary endpoint included the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were per-protocol population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN16668711). FINDINGS: Participants were recruited from Feb 20, 2020 to Feb 1, 2021. 40 participants were assigned to each group and there were seven dropouts in the medical group and ten dropouts in the surgical group. The median number of ovulations was 6 (IQR 3·5-10·0) in the surgical group and 2 (0·0-4·0) in the medical group. Women in the surgical group had 2.5 times more spontaneous ovulations compared with the medical group (incidence rate ratio 2·5 [95% CI 1·5-4·2], p<0·0007). There were more complications in the surgical group than the medical group, although without long-term sequelae. There were 24 (66·7%) adverse events in the surgical group and 12 (30·0%) in the medical group. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Bariatric surgery was more effective than medical care for the induction of spontaneous ovulation in women with PCOS, obesity, and oligomenorrhoea or amenorrhoea. Bariatric surgery could, therefore, enhance the prospects of spontaneous fertility in this group of women. FUNDING: The Jon Moulton Charity Trust.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Bariátrica , Obesidad , Ovulación , Síndrome del Ovario Poliquístico , Humanos , Síndrome del Ovario Poliquístico/complicaciones , Síndrome del Ovario Poliquístico/cirugía , Femenino , Adulto , Cirugía Bariátrica/efectos adversos , Cirugía Bariátrica/métodos , Obesidad/complicaciones , Obesidad/cirugía , Oligomenorrea , Resultado del Tratamiento , Amenorrea/etiología , Adulto Joven , Gastrectomía/métodos , Gastrectomía/efectos adversos , Infertilidad Femenina/etiologíaRESUMEN
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a prevalent condition where diabetes is diagnosed during pregnancy, affecting both maternal and fetal outcomes. Retinol-binding protein 4 (RBP4) is a circulating adipokine which belongs to the lipocalin family and acts as a specific carrier protein that delivers retinol (vitamin A) from the liver to the peripheral tissues. Growing data indicate that circulating RBP4 levels may positively correlate with GDM. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the potential relationship between circulating RBP4 levels and GDM when measured at various stages of pregnancy. Methods: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMCARE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies comparing pregnant women with and without GDM, whose circulating RBP4 levels were measured in at least one pregnancy trimester. Findings were reported using standardized mean difference (SMD) and random-effects models were used to account for variability among studies. Furthermore, the risk of bias was assessed using the RoBANS tool. Results: Out of the 34 studies identified, 32 were included in the meta-analysis (seven with circulating RBP4 levels measured in the first trimester, 19 at 24-28 weeks, and 14 at >28 weeks of pregnancy). RBP4 levels were statistically higher in the GDM group than in controls when measured during all these pregnancy stages, with the noted RBP4 SMD being 0.322 in the first trimester (95% CI: 0.126-0.517; p < 0.001; 946 GDM cases vs. 1701 non-GDM controls); 0.628 at 24-28 weeks of gestation (95% CI: 0.290-0.966; p < 0.001; 1776 GDM cases vs. 1942 controls); and 0.875 at >28 weeks of gestation (95% CI: 0.252-1.498; p = 0.006; 870 GDM cases vs. 1942 non-GDM controls). Significant study heterogeneity was noted for all three pregnancy timepoints. Conclusion: The present findings indicate consistently higher circulating RBP4 levels in GDM cases compared to non-GDM controls, suggesting the potential relevance of RBP4 as a biomarker for GDM. However, the documented substantial study heterogeneity, alongside imprecision in effect estimates, underscores the need for further research and standardization of measurement methods to elucidate whether RBP4 can be utilized in clinical practice as a potential GDM biomarker. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022340097: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022340097).