Metformin With or Without Clomiphene Citrate Versus Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling With or Without Clomiphene Citrate to Treat Patients With Clomiphene Citrate-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Which is optimal to treat clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (CCR-PCOS) with LOD or metformin remains a problem. There are three inconsistent or even contradictory views. Objectives: The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Metformin with or without CC and to compare them with LOD with or without CC (Met/Met-CC vs. LOD/LOD-CC) in women with CCR-PCOS who also have anovulation. Data source: The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant studies reported between 1 Jan 1966 and 31 Aug 2019; the search was updated on 17 May 2022. Study eligibility criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CCR-PCOS that had considered Met/Met-CC and LOD/LOD-CC as the exposure variables and fertility as the main outcome variable. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate and the primary safety outcome was miscarriage rate. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed. The robustness of the results was assessed using sensitivity analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to examine the reasons for heterogeneity. Publication bias was examined using the funnel plot, Egger linear regression, and Begg rank correlation tests. The quality of this meta-analysis was estimated according to the GRADE approach. This meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021240156). Results: Among 71 potentially relevant studies, we included five RCTs in our meta-analysis. We found no difference in effectiveness between Met-CC and LOD in terms of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87-1.21, z = 0.28; p = 0.780), and miscarriage rates (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.46-1.36, z = 0.86; p = 0.390). I2 tests results revealed moderate or no heterogeneity (I2 = 51.4%, p = 0.083; I2= 0.0%; p = 0.952). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. Funnel plot, Egger linear regression, and Begg rank correlation tests implied no publication bias (p > 0.05). LOD was more expensive than Met (€1050 vs. €50.16). The evidence quality was moderate. Conclusion: There is no evidence on the difference in the outcomes between the two interventions regarding ovulation, pregnancy, and live birth. As LOD is an invasive procedure and carries inherent risks, the use of Met/Met-CC should be the second-line treatment for women with CCR-PCOS. Systematic Review Registration: identifier CRD42021240156.

Keywords: clomiphene citrate resistance; laparoscopic ovarian drilling; live-birth; meta-analysis; metformin.

FIGURE 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses flow chart depicting the process of paper selection and the number of papers in each phase. Notes: RCT, randomized controlled trial.

FIGURE 2

Risk of bias graph for reviewing authors’ judgements: (A) Individual studies, and (B) All studies. Note: The colors have the same meaning in both (A) and (B).

FIGURE 3

Forest plot of effectiveness and safety outcomes in the Met/Met-CC vs LOD/LOD-CC comparison using the fixed-effect model: (A) effectiveness; and (B) safety. Notes: Met, metformin, CC, clomiphene citrate, LOD, laparoscopic ovarian drilling.

FIGURE 4

Funnel plot of (A) live birth/ongoing pregnancy, (B) pregnancy (C) ovulation induction, and (D) miscarriage rates.