Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome

Abstract STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended assessment and management of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise and consumer preference? SUMMARY ANSWER International evidence-based guidelines, including 166 recommendations and practice points, addressed prioritized questions to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes of women with PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Previous guidelines either lacked rigorous evidence-based processes, did not engage consumer and international multidisciplinary perspectives, or were outdated. Diagnosis of PCOS remains controversial, and assessment and management are inconsistent. The needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met and evidence practice gaps persist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION International evidence-based guideline development engaged professional societies and consumer organizations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II-compliant processes were followed, with extensive evidence synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Governance included a six continent international advisory and a project board, five guideline development groups, and consumer and translation committees. Extensive health professional and consumer engagement informed guideline scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included pediatrics, endocrinology, gynecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis and translation experts. In total, 37 societies and organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty face-to-face meetings over 15 months addressed 60 prioritized clinical questions involving 40 systematic and 20 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus voting within the five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, with final recommendations approved across all panels. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS is generally of low to moderate quality. The guideline provides 31 evidence based recommendations, 59 clinical consensus recommendations and 76 clinical practice points all related to assessment and management of PCOS. Key changes in this guideline include: (i) considerable refinement of individual diagnostic criteria with a focus on improving accuracy of diagnosis; (ii) reducing unnecessary testing; (iii) increasing focus on education, lifestyle modification, emotional wellbeing and quality of life; and (iv) emphasizing evidence based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Overall evidence is generally low to moderate quality, requiring significantly greater research in this neglected, yet common condition, especially around refining specific diagnostic features in PCOS. Regional health system variation is acknowledged and a process for guideline and translation resource adaptation is provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The international guideline for the assessment and management of PCOS provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the guideline with an integrated evaluation program. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was primarily funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) supported by a partnership with ESHRE and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guideline development group members did not receive payment. Travel expenses were covered by the sponsoring organizations. Disclosures of conflicts of interest were declared at the outset and updated throughout the guideline process, aligned with NHMRC guideline processes. Full details of conflicts declared across the guideline development groups are available at https://www.monash.edu/medicine/sphpm/mchri/pcos/guideline in the Register of disclosures of interest. Of named authors, Dr Costello has declared shares in Virtus Health and past sponsorship from Merck Serono for conference presentations. Prof. Laven declared grants from Ferring, Euroscreen and personal fees from Ferring, Euroscreen, Danone and Titus Healthcare. Prof. Norman has declared a minor shareholder interest in an IVF unit. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our partner and collaborating societies and consumer organizations, was independently assessed against AGREE-II criteria, and underwent methodological review. This guideline was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and was submitted for final approval by the NHMRC.

Rong Li | Jie Qiao | Ricardo Azziz | Jayashri Kulkarni | Jaideep Malhotra | Richard S Legro | Poli Mara Spritzer | Duru Shah | Helena J Teede | Roger Hart | Jane Speight | Ernest Ng | Didier Dewailly | Luigi Devoto | Leanne Redman | Kathleen Hoeger | Marla Lujan | L. Redman | B. Mol | J. Qiao | L. Moran | Rong Li | T. Piltonen | J. Kulkarni | R. Hart | H. Teede | A. Joham | E. Ng | J. Speight | P. Spritzer | R. Norman | E. Stener-Victorin | C. Harrison | A. Dokras | F. Broekmans | B. Fauser | R. Legro | J. Laven | S. Franks | S. Thangaratinam | R. Azziz | M. Andersen | J. Tapanainen | M. Vogiatzi | L. Brennan | A. Hirschberg | P. Dabadghao | J. Malhotra | D. Dewailly | J. Boyle | Z. M. van der Spuy | C. Tzeng | L. Devoto | S. Witchel | L. Rombauts | B. Yıldız | Sharon Oberfield | Estifanos Baye | R. Rodgers | Marianne Andersen | Robert J Norman | M. Lujan | A. Balen | Zephne van der Spuy | D. Mansfield | N. Stepto | Melanie Gibson-Helm | C. Wijeyaratne | Nigel Stepto | L. Redman | Leah Brennan | E. Vanky | Stephen Franks | Anuja Dokras | S. Oberfield | M. Costello | Ben W Mol | S. Hutchison | K. Hoeger | Shakila Thangaratinam | Maria Vogiatzi | Michael F Costello | Marie L Misso | Joop Laven | Lisa Moran | Terhi Piltonen | Adam Balen | Estifanos Baye | Jacqueline Boyle | Frank Broekmans | Preeti Dabadghao | Linda Downes | Bart Fauser | Rhonda M Garad | Cheryce Harrison | Rachel Hawkes | Angelica Hirschberg | Femke Hohmann | Samantha Hutchison | Anju Joham | Louise Johnson | Cailin Jordan | Darren Mansfield | Kate Marsh | Veryan McAllister | Edgar Mocanu | Sasha Ottey | Alexia Peña | Raymond Rodgers | Luk Rombauts | Daniela Romualdi | Elisabet Stener-Victorin | Juha S Tapanainen | Eliza C Tassone | Mala Thondan | Chii-Ruey Tzeng | Eszter Vanky | Angela Wan | Chandrika Wijeyaratne | Selma Witchel | Jane Woolcock | Bulent O Yildiz | L. Johnson | D. Romualdi | M. Gibson-Helm | R. Garad | Kate A Marsh | M. Misso | R. Hawkes | A. Pena | B. Mol | F. Hohmann | Mala Thondan | J. Woolcock | E. C. Tassone | D. Shah | Linda Downes | C. Jordan | V. McAllister | E. Mocanu | Sasha Ottey | A. Wan | R. Rodgers | M. Vogiatzi | Z. van der Spuy | R. Hart | M. Andersen | K. Marsh | S. Ottey | Nigel Stepto | E. Tassone

[1]  Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[2]  L. Moran,et al.  ReviewPolycystic ovary syndrome : a complex condition with psychological , reproductive and metabolic manifestations that impacts on health across the lifespan , 2010 .

[3]  Michelle E. Kho,et al.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care , 2010, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[4]  L. Moran,et al.  Assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome: summary of an evidence‐based guideline , 2011, The Medical journal of Australia.

[5]  M. Murad,et al.  Diagnosis and Treatment of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline , 2013, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[6]  F. Keleştimur,et al.  The polycystic ovary syndrome: a position statement from the European Society of Endocrinology. , 2014, European journal of endocrinology.

[7]  H. Teede,et al.  Polycystic ovary syndrome: perceptions and attitudes of women and primary health care physicians on features of PCOS and renaming the syndrome. , 2014, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[8]  R. Cobin,et al.  AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY, AND ANDROGEN EXCESS AND PCOS SOCIETY DISEASE STATE CLINICAL REVIEW: GUIDE TO THE BEST PRACTICES IN THE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF POLYCYSTIC OVARY SYNDROME--PART 1. , 2015, Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

[9]  H. Teede,et al.  Polycystic ovary syndrome. , 2014, Nature reviews. Disease primers.

[10]  H. Teede,et al.  The management of anovulatory infertility in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance. , 2016, Human reproduction update.

[11]  Helena Teede,et al.  Delayed Diagnosis and a Lack of Information Associated With Dissatisfaction in Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome , 2016, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[12]  H. Teede,et al.  Gaps in knowledge among physicians regarding diagnostic criteria and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. , 2017, Fertility and sterility.