Association between body mass index, weight loss and the chance of pregnancy in women with polycystic ovary syndrome and overweight or obesity: a retrospective cohort study in the UK.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the associations between baseline BMI (Study 1) and change in body weight (Study 2) with the likelihood of pregnancy in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with PCOS, higher baseline BMI was associated with a lower chance of pregnancy; however, weight loss was associated with an increased chance of pregnancy versus maintaining a stable weight or gaining weight. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Two studies in large cohorts of Danish women with the intention to become pregnant showed a decline in fecundability ratios with higher BMI. Furthermore, a meta-analysis found that overweight/obesity significantly worsened metabolic and reproductive outcomes in women with PCOS. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Data were extracted from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Patients included women aged 18-45 years with BMI ≥18.5 (Study 1) or ≥25 kg/m2 (Study 2) at time of PCOS diagnosis (index date). The primary outcome was the time to first pregnancy recorded during 36-months' follow-up, analysed with Cox proportional hazard models and presented as hazard ratios (HRs). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Study 1 included 9955 women with PCOS. Study 2 included 7593 women with PCOS and median BMI of 34.0 kg/m2. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Higher BMI was associated with a lower chance of pregnancy in the 3 years following diagnosis. It was estimated that 41% of women with normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2) would become pregnant compared to 17% of women with obesity class III (BMI ≥40.0 kg/m2) during follow-up. Furthermore, the chance of pregnancy for women with obesity class III was estimated to be 63% lower than for women with normal weight, with the same age and glycaemic status (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31-0.44; P < 0.0001). A significant inverse association was found between BMI change and chance of pregnancy: 10% weight loss was estimated to increase the chance of pregnancy by 68% for women with baseline BMI of 40 kg/m2 (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.49-1.90). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Multiple factors influence the chance of pregnancy (the ability and willingness to become pregnant), which was addressed by exclusion criteria employed. The real-world nature of the study means that use of non-prescription contraceptives was not available. Bias may have been introduced by the fact that only around 40% of women with PCOS in the CPRD GOLD database had their BMI recorded during the year prior to PCOS diagnosis. BMI categories used in the analyses may not be applicable to women of all ethnicities. The study population was only representative of women in the UK and results may not be generalizable to other regions. PCOS diagnoses were based on codes entered into the system by primary care providers, and no information was available regarding the criteria used for diagnosis, although symptoms used to diagnose PCOS have not changed over time. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our observations provide further evidence of the benefits of weight loss in women with overweight/obesity and PCOS who are seeking to become pregnant. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Novo Nordisk A/S. A.H.B. declares fees for consultancy from Novo Nordisk. P.N.L. and C.L.H. are employees of Novo Nordisk. V.S. and A.V. are employees of, and hold shares in, Novo Nordisk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

The FIGO Ovulatory Disorders Classification System†.

Ovulatory disorders are common causes of amenorrhea, abnormal uterine bleeding and infertility and are frequent manifestations of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). There are many potential causes and contributors to ovulatory dysfunction that challenge clinicians, trainees, educators, and those who perform basic, translational, clinical and epidemiological research. Similarly, therapeutic approaches to ovulatory dysfunction potentially involve a spectrum of lifestyle, psychological, medical and procedural interventions. Collaborative research, effective education and consistent clinical care remain challenged by the absence of a consensus comprehensive system for classification of these disorders. The existing and complex system, attributed to the World Health Organization (WHO), was developed more than three decades ago and did not consider more than 30 years of research into these disorders in addition to technical advances in imaging and endocrinology. This article describes the development of a new classification of ovulatory disorders performed under the aegis of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and conducted using a rigorously applied Delphi process. The stakeholder organizations and individuals who participated in this process comprised specialty journals, experts at large, national, specialty obstetrical and gynecological societies, and informed lay representatives. After two face-to-face meetings and five Delphi rounds, the result is a three-level multi-tiered system. The system is applied after a preliminary assessment identifies the presence of an ovulatory disorder. The primary level of the system is based on an anatomic model (Hypothalamus, Pituitary, Ovary) that is completed with a separate category for PCOS. This core component of the system is easily remembered using the acronym HyPO-P. Each anatomic category is stratified in the second layer of the system to provide granularity for investigators, clinicians and trainees using the 'GAIN-FIT-PIE' mnemonic (Genetic, Autoimmune, Iatrogenic, Neoplasm; Functional, Infectious and Inflammatory, Trauma and Vascular; Physiological, Idiopathic, Endocrine). The tertiary level allows for specific diagnostic entities. It is anticipated that, if widely adopted, this system will facilitate education, clinical care and the design and interpretation of research in a fashion that better informs progress in this field. Integral to the deployment of this system is a periodic process of reevaluation and appropriate revision, reflecting an improved understanding of this collection of disorders.

Harmonizing research outcomes for polycystic ovary syndrome (HARP), a marathon not a sprint: current challenges and future research need.

Investing in clinical research and evidence-based medicine has helped to improve the care for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, several important questions remain unanswered on the optimal prevention and management strategies for PCOS. Addressing this uncertainty is often hindered by suboptimal research conduct leading to inefficient evidence synthesis and research wastage. PCOS research is often practised by varied specialized teams in silo leading to disharmonious and fragmented efforts neglecting the lifelong impact of PCOS on women's wellbeing. Poor engagement among key stakeholders and lay consumers continues to limit the impact and benefits of research to society. Selective reporting on surrogate outcomes with a 'significant' P-value is a common malpractice in PCOS outputs. Effective adoption of the harmonizing research outcomes for PCOS (HARP) core outcome set is needed to minimize heterogeneity in reporting and promote research excellence. Small single-centre studies offer limited value to assess the varied PCOS phenotypes. Efficient large scale data-sharing is needed to address complex research questions and glean the benefits of big data research. We propose a roadmap to address these challenges and remedy future research need by promoting patient and public involvement in PCOS research to guide research efforts and address real patients' needs; engaging all key stakeholder groups to promote a multi-disciplinary lifelong approach to new research; continuously refining research needs and priorities to revise the knowledge gap and allocate resources judiciously; standardizing outcomes definitions and measurement tools to harmonize reporting and promote excellence in research; and by investing in large data-sharing infrastructure to facilitate big data research and govern ethical data sharing.

Harmonising research outcomes for polycystic ovary syndrome: an international multi-stakeholder core outcome set.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the key core outcomes to be reported in studies on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We identified 3 generic and 30 specific core outcomes in 6 specialist domains: metabolic (8), reproductive (7), pregnancy (10), oncological (1), psychological (1) and long-term outcomes (1). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research reporting PCOS is heterogeneous with high variation in outcome selection, definition and quality. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Evidence synthesis and a modified Delphi method with e-surveys were used as well as a consultation meeting. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 71 health professionals and 123 lay consumers (women with lived experience of PCOS and members of advocacy and peer support groups) from 17 high-, middle- and low-income countries were involved in this analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The final core outcome set included 3 generic outcomes (BMI, quality of life, treatment satisfaction) that are applicable to all studies on women with PCOS and 30 specific outcomes that were categorised into six specialist domains: 8 metabolic outcomes (waist circumference, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hypertension, coronary heart disease, lipid profile, venous thromboembolic disease); 7 reproductive outcomes [viable pregnancy (confirmed by ultrasound including singleton, twins and higher multiples), clinical and biochemical hyperandrogenism, menstrual regularity, reproductive hormonal profile, chronic anovulation, ovulation stimulation success including the number of stimulated follicles ≥ 12 mm, incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome]; 10 pregnancy outcomes (live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal mortality, gestational weight gain, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, hypertensive disease in pregnancy, baby birth weight, major congenital abnormalities); 3 psychological outcomes (depression, anxiety, eating disorders); 1 oncological (abnormal endometrial proliferation including atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer); and 1 outcome in the long-term domain (long-term offspring metabolic and developmental outcomes). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We involved lay consumers in all stages of study through e-surveys but not through focus groups, thereby limiting our understanding of their choices. We did not address the variations in the definitions and measurement tools for some of the core outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Implementing this core outcome set in future studies on women with PCOS will improve the quality of reporting and aid evidence synthesis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Evidence synthesis was funded through the Australian government, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, and H.T. is funded through an NHMRC fellowship. B.H.A. is funded through an NIHR lectureship. All authors have no competing interest to declare.

Metformin for ovulation induction (excluding gonadotrophins) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by infrequent or absent ovulation, and high levels of androgens and insulin (hyperinsulinaemia). Hyperinsulinaemia occurs secondary to insulin resistance and is associated with an increased biochemical risk profile for cardiovascular disease and an increased prevalence of diabetes mellitus. Insulin-sensitising agents such as metformin may be effective in treating PCOS-related anovulation. This is an update of Morley 2017 and only includes studies on metformin. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metformin in combination with or in comparison to clomiphene citrate (CC), letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) in improving reproductive outcomes and associated gastrointestinal side effects for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to December 2018: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We searched registers of ongoing trials and reference lists from relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of metformin compared with placebo, no treatment, or in combination with or compared with CC, letrozole and LOD for women with PCOS subfertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and bias. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and gastrointestinal adverse effects. Secondary outcomes included other pregnancy outcomes and ovulation. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and reported quality of the evidence for primary outcomes and reproductive outcomes using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 studies (4552 women). Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate based on GRADE assessment. Limitations were risk of bias (poor reporting of methodology and incomplete outcome data), imprecision and inconsistency. Metformin versus placebo or no treatment The evidence suggests that metformin may improve live birth rates compared with placebo (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.51; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 435 women; low-quality evidence). For a live birth rate of 19% following placebo, the live birth rate following metformin would be between 19% and 37%. The metformin group probably experiences more gastrointestinal side effects (OR 4.00, 95% CI 2.63 to 6.09; I2 = 39%; 7 studies, 713 women; moderate-quality evidence). With placebo, the risk of gastrointestinal side effects is 10% whereas with metformin this risk is between 22% and 40%. There are probably higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.65; I2 = 30%; 11 studies, 1213 women; moderate-quality evidence). There may be higher rates of ovulation with metformin (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.85 to 3.75; I2 = 61%; 13 studies, 684 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect on miscarriage rates (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.35; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 748 women; low-quality evidence). Metformin plus CC versus CC alone We are uncertain if metformin plus CC improves live birth rates compared to CC alone (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.65; I2 = 28%; 10 studies, 1219 women; low-quality evidence), but gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common with combined therapy (OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.83 to 6.40; I2 = 8%; 6 studies, 852 women; moderate quality evidence). The live birth rate with CC alone is 24%, which may change to between 23% to 34% with combined therapy. With CC alone, the risk of gastrointestinal side effects is 9%, which increases to between 21% to 37% with combined therapy. The combined therapy group probably has higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.99; I2 = 31%; 19 studies, 1790 women; moderate-quality evidence). The combined group may have higher rates of ovulation (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.03; I2 = 63%;21 studies, 1568 women; low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an effect on miscarriage (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.00; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 1206 women; low-quality evidence). Metformin versus CC When all studies were combined, findings for live birth were inconclusive and inconsistent (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; I2 = 86%; 5 studies, 741 women; very low-quality evidence). In subgroup analysis by obesity status, obese women had a lower birth rate in the metformin group (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; 2 studies, 500 women), while the non-obese group showed a possible benefit from metformin, with high heterogeneity (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.94; I2 = 78%, 3 studies, 241 women; very low-quality evidence). However, due to the very low quality of the evidence we cannot draw any conclusions. Among obese women taking metformin there may be lower rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 500 women; low-quality evidence) and ovulation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.43; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 500 women; low-quality evidence) while among non-obese women, the metformin group may have more pregnancies (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29; I2 = 26%; 6 studies, 530 women; low-quality evidence) and no clear difference in ovulation rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 352 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in miscarriage rates between the groups (overall: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.66; I2 = 36%; 6 studies, 781 women; low-quality evidence) and no studies reported gastrointestinal side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our updated review suggests that metformin may be beneficial over placebo for live birth however, more women probably experience gastrointestinal side effects. We are uncertain if metformin plus CC improves live birth rates compared to CC alone, but gastrointestinal side effects are probably increased with combined therapy. When metformin was compared with CC, data for live birth were inconclusive, and the findings were limited by lack of evidence. Results differed by body mass index (BMI), emphasising the importance of stratifying results by BMI. No studies reported gastrointestinal side effects in this comparison. Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage in all three comparisons.

A brief update on the evidence supporting the treatment of infertility in polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is complex with reproductive, metabolic and psychological features. Infertility is a prevalent presenting feature of PCOS with approximately 75% of these women suffering infertility due to anovulation, making PCOS by far the most common cause of anovulatory infertility. Previous guidelines either lacked rigorous evidence-based processes, did not engage consumer and international multidisciplinary perspectives, or were outdated. AIMS: This review paper aims to provide a brief update on the best available and most current research evidence supporting the treatment of PCOS which informed the recommendations in the assessment and treatment of infertility section of the international evidence-based guideline on PCOS 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International evidence-based guideline development engaged professional societies and consumer organisations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. RESULTS: Lifestyle change alone is considered the first-line treatment for the management of infertile anovulatory PCOS women who are overweight or obese. Letrozole should now be considered first-line pharmacological treatment for ovulation induction to improve fertility outcomes. Clomiphene citrate alone and metformin alone could also be used as first-line pharmacological therapy, although both are less effective than letrozole and metformin is less effective than clomiphene citrate in obese women. Gonadotrophins or laparoscopic ovarian surgery are usually second-line ovulation induction therapies. In the absence of an absolute indication for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) / intracytoplasmic sperm injection, women with PCOS and anovulatory infertility could be offered IVF as third-line therapy where first- or second-line ovulation induction therapies have failed. CONCLUSION: This review provides the best available evidence informing recommendations (along with clinical expertise and consumer preference) which provide clinicians with clear advice on best practice for the management of infertile women with PCOS.

Insulin-sensitising drugs (metformin, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, D-chiro-inositol) for women with polycystic ovary syndrome, oligo amenorrhoea and subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by infrequent or absent ovulation, and high levels of androgens and insulin (hyperinsulinaemia). Hyperinsulinaemia occurs secondary to insulin resistance and is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus. Insulin-sensitising agents such as metformin may be effective in treating PCOS-related anovulation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of insulin-sensitising drugs in improving reproductive and metabolic outcomes for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We searched registers of ongoing trials and reference lists from relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of insulin-sensitising drugs compared with placebo, no treatment, or an ovulation-induction agent for women with oligo and anovulatory PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and bias. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and gastrointestinal adverse effects. Secondary outcomes included other pregnancy outcomes, menstrual frequency and metabolic effects. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and reported quality of the evidence for primary outcomes using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We assessed the interventions metformin, clomiphene citrate, metformin plus clomiphene citrate, D-chiro-inositol, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. We compared these with each other, placebo or no treatment. We included 48 studies (4451 women), 42 of which investigated metformin (4024 women). Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations were risk of bias (poor reporting of methodology and incomplete outcome data), imprecision and inconsistency. Metformin versus placebo or no treatmentThe evidence suggests that metformin may improve live birth rates compared with placebo (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.51, 4 studies, 435 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The metformin group experienced more gastrointestinal side effects (OR 4.76, 95% CI 3.06 to 7.41, 7 studies, 670 women, I2 = 61%, moderate-quality evidence) but had higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.64, 9 studies, 1027 women, I2 = 43%, moderate-quality evidence), ovulation (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.59, 14 studies, 701 women, I2 = 58%, moderate-quality evidence) and menstrual frequency (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.61, 7 studies, 427 women, I2 = 54%, low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.35, 4 studies, 748 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Metformin plus clomiphene citrate versus clomiphene citrate alone There was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rates (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.59, 9 studies, 1079 women, I2 = 20%, low-quality evidence), but gastrointestinal side effects were more common with combined therapy (OR 3.97, 95% CI 2.59 to 6.08, 3 studies, 591 women, I2 = 47%, moderate-quality evidence). However, the combined therapy group had higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.99, 16 studies, 1529 women, I2 = 33%, moderate-quality evidence) and ovulation (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.92, 21 studies, 1624 women, I2 = 64%, moderate-quality evidence). There was a statistically significant difference in miscarriage rate per woman, with higher rates in the combined therapy group (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46, 9 studies, 1096 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) but this is of uncertain clinical significance due to low-quality evidence, and no clear difference between groups when we analysed miscarriage per pregnancy (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.12, 8 studies; 400 pregnancies, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Metformin versus clomiphene citrateWhen all studies were combined, findings for live birth were inconclusive and inconsistent (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01, 5 studies, 741 women, I2 = 86%, very low-quality evidence). In subgroup analysis by obesity status, obese women had a lower birth rate in the metformin group (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52, 2 studies, 500 women, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), while data from the non-obese group showed a possible benefit from metformin, with high heterogeneity (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.94, 3 studies, 241 women, I2 = 78%, very low-quality evidence). Similarly, among obese women taking metformin there were lower rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55, 2 studies, 500 women, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence) and ovulation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.43 2 studies, 500 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) while among non-obese women, the metformin group had more pregnancies (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.33, 5 studies, 490 women, I2 = 41%, very low-quality evidence) and no clear difference in ovulation rates (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.28, 4 studies, 312 women, low-quality evidence, I2=0%). There was no clear evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates (overall: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.67, 5 studies, 741 women, I2 = 52%, very low-quality evidence). D-chiro-inositol (2 studies), rosiglitazone (1 study) or pioglitazone (1 study) versus placebo or no treatmentWe were unable to draw conclusions regarding other insulin-sensitising drugs as no studies reported primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our updated review suggests that metformin alone may be beneficial over placebo for live birth, although the evidence quality was low. When metformin was compared with clomiphene citrate, data for live birth were inconclusive, and our findings were limited by lack of evidence. Results differed by body mass index (BMI), emphasising the importance of stratifying results by BMI. An improvement in clinical pregnancy and ovulation suggests that clomiphene citrate remains preferable to metformin for ovulation induction in obese women with PCOS.An improved clinical pregnancy and ovulation rate with metformin and clomiphene citrate versus clomiphene citrate alone suggests that combined therapy may be useful although we do not know whether this translates into increased live births. Women taking metformin alone or with combined therapy should be advised that there is no evidence of increased miscarriages, but gastrointestinal side effects are more likely.

Isolation and expression of the human gametocyte-specific factor 1 gene (GTSF1) in fetal ovary, oocytes, and preimplantation embryos.

PURPOSE: Gametocyte-specific factor 1 has been shown in other species to be required for the silencing of retrotransposons via the Piwi-interacting RNA (piRNA) pathway. In this study, we aimed to isolate and assess expression of transcripts of the gametocyte-specific factor 1 (GTSF1) gene in the human female germline and in preimplantation embryos. METHODS: Complementary DNA (cDNA) libraries from human fetal ovaries and testes, human oocytes and preimplantation embryos and ovarian follicles isolated from an adult ovarian cortex biopsy were used to as templates for PCR, cloning and sequencing, and real time PCR experiments of GTSF1 expression. RESULTS: GTSF1 cDNA clones that covered the entire coding region were isolated from human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. GTSF1 mRNA expression was detected in archived cDNAs from staged human ovarian follicles, germinal vesicle (GV) stage oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, and morula and blastocyst stage preimplantation embryos. Within the adult female germline, expression was highest in GV oocytes. GTSF1 mRNA expression was also assessed in human fetal ovary and was observed to increase during gestation, from 8 to 21 weeks, during which time oogonia enter meiosis and primordial follicle formation first occurs. In human fetal testis, GTSF1 expression also increased from 8 to 19 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this report is the first to describe the expression of the human GTSF1 gene in human gametes and preimplantation embryos.

Society for Endocrinology UK guidance on the initial evaluation of an infant or an adolescent with a suspected disorder of sex development (Revised 2015).

It is paramount that any child or adolescent with a suspected disorder of sex development (DSD) is assessed by an experienced clinician with adequate knowledge about the range of conditions associated with DSD. If there is any doubt, the case should be discussed with the regional DSD team. In most cases, particularly in the case of the newborn, the paediatric endocrinologist within the regional team acts commonly as the first point of contact. This clinician should be part of a multidisciplinary team experienced in management of DSD and should ensure that the affected person and parents have access to specialist psychological support and that their information needs are comprehensively addressed. The underlying pathophysiology of DSD and the strengths and weaknesses of the tests that can be performed should be discussed with the parents and affected young person and tests undertaken in a timely fashion. Finally, in the field of rare conditions, it is imperative that the clinician shares the experience with others through national and international clinical and research collaboration.

A comprehensive review of the new FIGO classification of ovulatory disorders.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) system for the classification of disorders of ovulation was produced 50 years ago and, by international consensus, has been updated by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This review outlines in detail each component of the FIGO HyPO-P (hypothalamic, pituitary, ovarian, PCOS) classification with a concise description of each cause, and thereby provides a systematic method for diagnosis and management. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the published articles in the PubMed database in the English-language literature until October 2022, containing the keywords ovulatory disorders; ovulatory dysfunction; anovulation, and each subheading in the FIGO HyPO-P classification. We did not include abstracts or conference proceedings because the data are usually difficult to assess. OUTCOMES: We present the most comprehensive review of all disorders of ovulation, published systematically according to the logical FIGO classification. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Improving the diagnosis of an individual's ovulatory dysfunction will significantly impact clinical practice by enabling healthcare practitioners to make a precise diagnosis and plan appropriate management.

Multi-stakeholder opinion statement on the care of individuals born with differences of sex development: common ground and opportunities for improvement.

BACKGROUND: In the last 15 years, the care provided for individuals born with differences of sex development (DSD) has evolved, with a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches. However, these developments have not convinced some stakeholders to embrace the current model of care. This care model has also paid insufficient attention to socio-cultural differences and global inequalities. SUMMARY: This article is an opinion statement, resulting from in-depth discussions and reflection among clinicians, patients, and family support organizations based in the US and Europe, where we seek areas of common ground and try to identify opportunities to further develop resources. The product of these conversations is summarized in 10 panels. The corresponding sections provide additional discussion on some of the panel items. KEY MESSAGES: Participants identified areas of agreement and gained a deeper understanding of the reasons behind disagreements on certain matters and identified the necessary steps to foster future consensus. We offer preliminary recommendations for guiding clinical management and resource allocation. By promoting a broader consensus, we aim to enhance the quality of care and well-being for individuals of all ages who have a DSD.

How to recognize PCOS: results of a web-based survey at IVF-worldwide.com.

This retrospective evaluation of a web-based survey posted from 1 to 30 September 2010 was to determine which diagnostic tools physicians are currently utilizing to diagnose polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Responses from 262 IVF centres in 68 countries are included in the study. Providers used various diagnostic criteria to diagnose PCOS, including the Rotterdam criteria (82%), National Institutes of Health criteria (8%), Androgen Excess Society 2006 criteria (3%) and other classification systems (7%). Many providers utilized diagnostic tools not necessarily included in traditional classification systems: 58% of respondents evaluated LH/FSH ratio in addition to androgen concentrations to define patients with PCOS; physicians also commonly obtain measurement of anti-Müllerian hormone (22%) and impaired glucose tolerance (74%) in diagnosing PCOS. Many respondents (64%) felt that polycystic-appearing ovaries on ultrasound with anovulation and a normal serum prolactin should be adequate criteria to diagnose PCOS. In conclusion, while the majority of centres (82%) uses the Rotterdam criteria to diagnose PCOS, other criteria and diagnostic tools are commonly used in evaluating patients with suspected PCOS. This study highlights the need for continual re-evaluation of PCOS diagnostic criteria with an ultimate goal of developing a consensus definition for the disorder in the future.

Fertility management in the PCOS population: results of a web-based survey at IVF-worldwide.com.

PURPOSE: To identify the leading treatment strategies for infertile women with PCOS on an international scale. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation using the results of a web-based survey, (IVF-Worldwide ( www.IVF-worldwide.com ), posted from 1 to 30 September 2010 was performed. Binomial confidence intervals for proportions were calculated by the modified Wald method with significance defined as P < 0.05 using a DataStar software package (DataStar, Waltham, MA, USA). Incomplete surveys were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: The results from 262 centers in 68 nations were obtained. Clomiphene citrate was the clear first choice, 68 %, for PCOS treatment in the respondent group. Eighty-eight percent of respondents utilized ultrasound follicular monitoring when conducting ovulation induction with oral medications. A significant (p < 0.05) proportion of respondents (66 %) did use some BMI cutoff beyond which IVF treatment was not offered. The preferred IVF protocols for PCOS patients were gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, 46 %, and GnRH agonist, 51 %. There was heterogeneity of responses observed regarding the management of a patient at very high risk of OHSS. CONCLUSIONS: While some advances, such as the use of GnRH antagonist regimen in IVF cycles, were relatively underutilized, the survey gives an unfiltered snapshot at the practice patterns of a large number of clinics. Results from this survey may be used by researchers and professional organizations to improve the clinical care of PCOS women suffering with infertility.

Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use. DESIGN: 'VALUE' is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades. RESULTS: Patients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high. CONCLUSIONS: There is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons. TRIAL REGISTRATION: osf.io/vnyb9.

"It all depends on why it's red": qualitative interviews exploring patient and professional views of a traffic light system for IVF add-ons.

Background IVF add-ons are techniques, medicines or procedures used in addition to standard IVF with the aim of improving the chance of success. The United Kingdom's IVF regulator, ( the Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority (HFEA) developed a traffic light system to categorise add-ons as either green, amber, or red, based on results of randomised controlled trials. Method Qualitative interviews were undertaken to explore understanding and views of the HFEA traffic light system among IVF clinicians, embryologists and IVF patients across Australia and the United Kingdom. Results A total of 73 interviews were conducted. Overall, participants were supportive of the intention of the traffic light system, however many limitations were raised. It was widely recognized that a simple traffic light system necessarily omits information which may be important to understanding the evidence base. In particular, the red category was used in scenarios that patients viewed as having different implications for their decision-making, including 'no evidence' and 'evidence of harm'. Patients were surprised at the absence of any green add-ons and questioned the value of a traffic light system in this context. Many participants considered the website a helpful starting point, but desired more detail, including the contributing studies, results specific to patient demographics (e.g., <35 years and >35 years), and inclusion of more options (e.g. acupuncture). Overall, participants believed the website to be reliable and trustworthy, particularly due to the Government affiliation, and despite some concerns regarding transparency and an overly cautious regulator. Conclusion Participants identified many limitations with the current application of the traffic light system. These could be considered in any future updates to the HFEA website and for others developing similar decision support tools.

Insulin-sensitising drugs (metformin, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, D-chiro-inositol) for women with polycystic ovary syndrome, oligo amenorrhoea and subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by infrequent or absent ovulation (anovulation), high levels of male hormones (hyperandrogenaemia) and high levels of insulin (hyperinsulinaemia secondary to increased insulin resistance). Hyperinsulinaemia is associated with an increase in cardiovascular risk and the development of diabetes mellitus. Insulin-sensitising agents such as metformin may be effective in treating the features of PCOS, including anovulation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of insulin-sensitising drugs in improving reproductive outcomes and metabolic parameters for women with PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 3rd Quarter 2011), CINAHL (October 2011), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2011), and EMBASE (January 1985 to October 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of insulin sensitising drugs compared with either placebo, no treatment, or an ovulation induction agent for women with PCOS, menstrual disturbance and subfertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data.   MAIN RESULTS: Forty-four trials (3992 women) were included for analysis, 38 of them using metformin and involving 3495 women.There was no evidence that metformin improved live birth rates, whether it was used alone (pooled OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.16, 3 trials, 115 women) or in combination with clomiphene (pooled OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56, 7 trials, 907 women). However, clinical pregnancy rates were improved for metformin versus placebo (pooled OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.51, 8 trials, 707 women) and for metformin and clomiphene versus clomiphene alone (pooled OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96, 11 trials, 1208 women). In the studies that compared metformin and clomiphene alone, there was evidence of an improved live birth rate (pooled OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52, 2 trials, 500 women) and clinical pregnancy rate (pooled OR 0.34, 95% 0.21 to 0.55, 2 trials, 500 women) in the group of obese women who took clomiphene.Metformin was also associated with a significantly higher incidence of gastrointestinal disturbances than placebo (pooled OR 4.27, 95% CI 2.4 to 7.59, 5 trials, 318 women) but no serious adverse effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In agreement with the previous review, metformin was associated with improved clinical pregnancy but there was no evidence that metformin improves live birth rates whether it is used alone or in combination with clomiphene, or when compared with clomiphene. Therefore, the role of metformin in improving reproductive outcomes in women with PCOS appears to be limited.

Ethnic variation in the live birth rate and perinatal outcomes following frozen embryo transfer: an analysis of the HFEA database from 2000 to 2016.

The literature suggests that ethnicity affects live birth rate (LBR) and preterm birth (PTB) rate after fresh but not frozen embryo transfer (FET). We analysed 64,530 FET cycles from 2000 to 2016 using the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) database. Ethnicity was recorded for 43,735 as White British, 3,034 as Indian, 1,946 as Pakistani, 1,400 as Black African, 1,090 as White Irish, 520 as Chinese, 319 as Bangladeshi and 277 as Black Caribbean women. The LBR per FET when compared with White British women (26.1%) was significantly reduced in women of White Irish (23.4%; adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00), Indian (25.2%; aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99), Bangladeshi (21.1%; aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95) and Pakistani (25.7%; aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.99) ethnicities. The PTB rate, when compared with White British women (8.4%) was significantly higher for women of Indian (11.1%; aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.79), Pakistani (11.8%; aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.03) and White Irish (12.3%; aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.38) ethnicities. This study suggests that FET outcomes are influenced by ethnicity.

Assisted reproduction in patients with cardiac disease: A retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess risks of assisted reproduction in patients with cardiac disease. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case note review of patients with cardiac disease undergoing ART over a 10 year period in the obstetric cardiac services of three UK tertiary centres. Assessment of maternal, obstetric and fetal complications during ART and resultant pregnancies. RESULTS: 34 patients with cardiac disease underwent 51 cycles of assisted reproduction. 24 patients (71%) received pre-pregnancy counselling. Mean age at the start of an assisted reproduction cycle was 32 years. Modified WHO (mWHO) risk category for the 34 patients was mWHO I, n = 3; mWHO II, n = 13; mWHO II- III, n = 10; mWHO III, n = 7; mWHO IV, n = 1. The 51 assisted reproduction cycles resulted in 31 pregnancies in 29 patients, and 31 live births, including two sets of twins. Live birth rate per cycle was 60.8%. Twin pregnancy rate per cycle was 5.8%. Four patients experienced complications during assisted reproduction treatment (7.8% per cycle); one major intra-abdominal haemorrhage following egg collection in a patient with a mechanical aortic valve, one endocarditis, one mild ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and one vagal syncope during egg collection. Four other patients experienced cardiac complications during resultant pregnancies (12.9%). 43% of mWHO class III patients experienced cardiac, obstetric or neonatal complications. Five babies were delivered pre-term (<37/40). CONCLUSIONS: This small study demonstrates that assisted reproduction carries increased risks of complications in patients with cardiac disease, but can be undertaken without major complication in the majority, as long as appropriate adjustments to treatment pathways are made, and they are managed through a multi-disciplinary team.

The FIGO Ovulatory Disorders Classification System.

Ovulatory disorders are common causes of amenorrhea, abnormal uterine bleeding, and infertility, and are frequent manifestations of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). There are many potential causes and contributors to ovulatory dysfunction that challenge clinicians, trainees, educators, and those who perform basic, translational, clinical, and epidemiological research. Similarly, therapeutic approaches to ovulatory dysfunction potentially involve a spectrum of lifestyle, psychological, medical, and procedural interventions. Collaborative research, effective education, and consistent clinical care remain challenged by the absence of a consensus comprehensive system for classification of these disorders. The existing and complex system, attributed to WHO, was developed more than three decades ago and did not consider more than 30 years of research into these disorders in addition to technical advances in imaging and endocrinology. This manuscript describes the development of a new classification of ovulatory disorders performed under the aegis of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and conducted using a rigorously applied Delphi process. The stakeholder organizations and individuals who participated in this process comprised specialty journals, experts at large, national, specialty obstetrical and gynecological societies, and informed lay representatives. After two face-to-face meetings and five Delphi rounds, the result is a three-level multi-tiered system. The system is applied after a preliminary assessment identifies the presence of an ovulatory disorder. The primary level of the system is based on an anatomic model (Hypothalamus, Pituitary, Ovary) that is completed with a separate category for PCOS. This core component of the system is easily remembered using the acronym HyPO-P. Each anatomic category is stratified in the second layer of the system to provide granularity for investigators, clinicians, and trainees using the "GAIN-FIT-PIE" mnemonic (Genetic, Autoimmune, Iatrogenic, Neoplasm; Functional, Infectious and Inflammatory, Trauma and vascular; Physiological, Idiopathic, Endocrine). The tertiary level allows for specific diagnostic entities. It is anticipated that, if widely adopted, this system will facilitate education, clinical care, and the design and interpretation of research in a fashion that better informs progress in this field. Integral to the deployment of this system is a periodic process of reevaluation and appropriate revision, reflecting an improved understanding of this collection of disorders.

The FIGO ovulatory disorders classification system.

Ovulatory disorders are common causes of amenorrhea, abnormal uterine bleeding, and infertility, and are frequent manifestations of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). There are many potential causes and contributors to ovulatory dysfunction that challenge clinicians, trainees, educators, and those who perform basic, translational, clinical, and epidemiological research. Similarly, therapeutic approaches to ovulatory dysfunction potentially involve a spectrum of lifestyle, psychological, medical, and procedural interventions. Collaborative research, effective education, and consistent clinical care remain challenged by the absence of a consensus comprehensive system for classification of these disorders. The existing and complex system, attributed to WHO, was developed more than three decades ago and did not consider more than 30 years of research into these disorders in addition to technical advances in imaging and endocrinology. This manuscript describes the development of a new classification of ovulatory disorders performed under the aegis of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and conducted using a rigorously applied Delphi process. The stakeholder organizations and individuals who participated in this process comprised specialty journals, experts at large, national, specialty obstetrical and gynecological societies, and informed lay representatives. After two face-to-face meetings and five Delphi rounds, the result is a three-level multi-tiered system. The system is applied after a preliminary assessment identifies the presence of an ovulatory disorder. The primary level of the system is based on an anatomic model (Hypothalamus, Pituitary, Ovary) that is completed with a separate category for PCOS. This core component of the system is easily remembered using the acronym HyPO-P. Each anatomic category is stratified in the second layer of the system to provide granularity for investigators, clinicians, and trainees using the "GAIN-FIT-PIE" mnemonic (Genetic, Autoimmune, Iatrogenic, Neoplasm; Functional, Infectious and Inflammatory, Trauma and Vascular; Physiological, Idiopathic, Endocrine). The tertiary level allows for specific diagnostic entities. It is anticipated that, if widely adopted, this system will facilitate education, clinical care, and the design and interpretation of research in a fashion that better informs progress in this field. Integral to the deployment of this system is a periodic process of reevaluation and appropriate revision, reflecting an improved understanding of this collection of disorders.