Comparative Efficacy of Oral Insulin Sensitizers Metformin, Thiazolidinediones, Inositol, and Berberine in Improving Endocrine and Metabolic Profiles in Women With Pcos: A Network Meta-analysis

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-357312/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Comparative Efficacy of Oral Insulin Sensitizers Metformin, Thiazolidinediones, Inositol, and Berberine in Improving Endocrine and Metabolic Profiles in Women With Pcos: A Network Meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-357312/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 18 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in Reproductive Health →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Multiple oral insulin-sensitizing agents, such as metformin, thiazolidinediones, inositols, and berberine, have been proven safe and efficacious in improving the endocrine, metabolic, and reproductive abnormalities seen in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), providing more options for healthcare providers and patients. These oral insulin sensitizers are more convenient, practical, and economic than agents that need to be injected. A comparison of the clinical effectiveness of the four different classes of oral insulin sensitizers in PCOS has not been explored, leading to clinical uncertainty about the optimal treatment pathway. The present study aims to compare the effects of oral insulin sensitizers on endocrine and metabolic profiles in women with PCOS.

Methods

We identified randomized controlled trials for PCOS from a variety of databases, published from January 2005 to October 2020. Outcomes included changes in menstrual frequency, improvements in hyperandrogenism and glucolipid metabolism and adverse side effects. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed.

Results

Twenty-two trials comprising 1079 patients with PCOS were included in this study. Compared with metformin, treatment with Myo-inositol + D-chiro-inositol was associated with a greater improvement in menstrual frequency (odds ratio 14.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31-93.58]). Myo-inositol + D-chiro-inositol and metformin + thiazolidinediones combination therapies were superior to respective monotherapies in reducing total testosterone levels. Thiazolidinediones, metformin + thiazolidinediones, and myo-inositol + D-chiro-inositol were associated with a lower insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) compared with that in metformin alone (mean differences: -0.72 [95% CI (-1.11)- (-0.34)] to -0.89 [95% CI (-1.460)- (-0.32)]). Metformin + thiazolidinediones treatment was associated with lower triglyceride levels compared with that in metformin and thiazolidinediones monotherapy, while thiazolidinediones was superior to metformin in increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and decreasing fasting plasma glucose, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Conclusions

Ours is the first study to report that for women with PCOS, Myo-inositol combined with D-chiro-inositol and metformin combined with thiazolidinediones appear superior to metformin alone in improving insulin resistance and decreasing total testosterone. Myo-inositol combined with D-chiro-inositol is particularly efficacious in menstrual recovery. Thiazolidinediones and metformin combined with thiazolidinediones improve lipid metabolism better than metformin alone.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42020211524

Sexual & Reproductive Medicine

polycystic ovary syndrome

oral insulin sensitizers

metformin

thiazolidinediones

inositol

berberine

endocrine

metabolic

network meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare the effects of oral insulin sensitizers on endocrine and metabolic profiles in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). A random-effects network meta-analysis including twenty-two trials was conducted. for women with PCOS, Myo-inositol combined with D-chiro-inositol and metformin combined with thiazolidinediones appear superior to metformin alone in improving insulin resistance and decreasing total testosterone level. Myo-inositol combined with D-chiro-inositol is particularly efficacious in menstrual recovery. Thiazolidinediones and metformin combined with thiazolidinediones improve lipid metabolism better than metformin alone.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common and complex endocrinopathy that affects 4–21% of women of reproductive age worldwide [1,2]. It is characterized by ovulatory dysfunction, hyperandrogenism, and a polycystic ovarian morphology. These features are accompanied by various metabolic abnormalities, such as insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and adiposity. PCOS has a long-term impact on overall health, such as an increased risk of endometrial cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular events [3,4]. Metformin (Met), a recognized insulin sensitizer, has been widely used for women with PCOS due to benefits, such as improving menstruation and hyperinsulinemia, hyperandrogenism, and abnormal metabolism, and it may also have a preventive effect on long-term cardiovascular diseases [5]. However, the persistent use of Met is accompanied by gastrointestinal adverse side effects, such as diarrhea and stomachache [6]. Multiple oral insulin-sensitizing agents, such as thiazolidinediones (TZDs), inositols, and berberine, have been proven safe and efficacious in improving the endocrine, metabolic, and reproductive abnormalities seen in PCOS, providing more options for healthcare providers and patients. These oral insulin sensitizers are more convenient, practical, and economic than agents that need to be injected. However, a comparison of the clinical effectiveness of the four different classes of oral insulin sensitizers in PCOS has not been explored, leading to clinical uncertainty about the optimal treatment pathway. Here, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was designed using metformin as control to compare the efficacy of the four different classes of oral insulin sensitizers in improving menstruation, hyperandrogenism, and abnormal metabolism in patients with PCOS, along with an assessment of their relative safety profiles.

The methods and results are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement [7]. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42020211524.

Search strategy and selection criteria

Systematic literature searches were performed in the following databases from January 2005 to October 23rd, 2020: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL), CBM Database, CNKI Database, the WanFang Database, the WeiPu Database, and ClinicalTrials. gov. We used different combinations of the following search terms: “polycystic ovary syndrome,” “metformin,” “thiazolidinediones,” “inositol,” and “berberine.” The PICO framework was used to identify relevant trials [8], without language, ethnicity, or regional restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in women, aged 18 to 49 years, diagnosed with PCOS based on the Rotterdam consensus, the Androgen Excess and PCOS Society criteria, the National Institute of Health, and Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of PCOS in China [9-12]. Eligible trials included those where treatments were followed-up for at least 12 weeks, consisting at least one of the predefined outcomes namely, menstruation, hyperandrogenism, and metabolism, and comparison of the effects of insulin sensitizers. Additionally, treatments combined with either oral contraceptives or ovulation-inducing agents, and patients with other diseases, such as nonclassic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, premature ovarian failure, hyperprolactinemia, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, Cushing’s syndrome, and androgen-secreting tumors were excluded.

Outcomes

The outcomes included menstruation frequency, parameters of hyperandrogenism (total testosterone (TT), sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), androstenedione (AND), and the modified Ferriman-Gallwey score (mF-G score)), parameters of glucolipid metabolism, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting insulin (FINS), Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance(HOMA-IR), and lipids (triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)). Obesity-related indexes, such as body mass index (BMI) and waist-hip ratio (WHR), and adverse events were also considered.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two independent reviewers (H.Z. and C.X.) screened the titles and abstracts and assessed the full texts of potential reports. The data extracted from the original trials included study, year, region, intervention, sample size, follow-up duration, and outcomes of interest (Table 1). Risk of bias assessment was assigned by two independent investigators (H.Z. and J.Z.) using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool 2.0 across seven domains [35], and the risk of bias graphs were constructed with Review Manager 5.4 (the Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Each trial was evaluated by two reviewers (H.Z. and C.X.), any discrepancies were resolved by a consensus-based discussion with another author (B.H.).

Data synthesis and analyses

The efficacy of different treatment regimens was compared simultaneously using a traditional pairwise meta-analysis (TMA) and network meta-analysis (NMA) [36]. Initially, we conducted a random-effect TMA using Review Manager 5.4 (the Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Continuous variables were represented by the weighted mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and for dichotomous variables, we calculated the combined odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs [37]. Between-study heterogeneity was determined using chi-squared test, combining I²and P values, for which I² > 50% or P < 0.05, indicated substantial heterogeneity. The random-effect NMA was subsequently performed to combine the direct and indirect comparisons of agents into one analysis with Stata software (version 15.1, Stata Corp LLC, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, TX, USA). We calculated the pooled estimates of MDs or ORs with 95% CIs in order to compare multiple interventions to each other. Network inconsistency was evaluated using the node-splitting method. Significance was assessed at the 0.05 level. Finally, to summarize the probabilities, we calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve to provide a summary statistic for cumulative ranking. The efficacy of each intervention was expressed as a percentage [38]. We conducted an Egger regression asymmetry test using Stata software to examine publication bias.

Study search and study characteristics

A total of 8645 publications were retrieved; of these, 22 RCTs (n = 1079 participants) were included in the present network meta-analysis. A flow chart depicting the literature search process based on PICO is presented in Figure 1. Overall, two studies evaluated and compared Myo-inositol (MI) and Myo-inositol + D-chiro-inositol (MI + DCI) combination treatment (72 women), one study compared MI and DCI (50 women), and the remaining RCTs offered a comparison of Met (19 trials; 455 women) and the following interventions: thiazolidinediones (TZDs) (ten trials; 280 women), Met + TZDs (three trials; 89 women), MI (four trials; 110 women), MI + DCI (one trial; 32 women), berberine (BBR) (one trial; 26 women), and Met + BBR (two trials; 70 women). The evidence map for the aforementioned interventions is shown in Figure 2.

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the included studies. These RCTs were conducted in various countries, published in English or Chinese, and participants were recruited from an outpatient clinic or a hospital. Trials were generally similar with respect to patient baseline characteristics for most outcomes. In summary, a total of 1079 women with PCOS were randomized to receive eight different interventions (Met, TZDs, BBR, MI, DCI, MI + DCI, Met + TZDs, and Met + BBR).

The risk of bias assessment is shown in Figure 3. Of the 22 included trials, seven were at a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, leading to performance and detection bias; and six studies were at a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, leading to attrition bias. All Egger regression asymmetry tests showed P > 0.05 (Supplementary Appendix 1).

Efficacy outcomes

Table 2A and Table 2B summarizes the NMA and TMA results for positive efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, other efficacy outcomes, details of the Forest plots, and SUCRA curves are presented in Supplementary Appendix 2.

Menstrual frequency

With respect to improving menstrual frequency, our TMA showed that Met + TZDs (OR 3.91 [95% CI 1.75-8.72]; P = 0.88, I² = 0%) was more efficacious than Met alone, while MI + DCI (OR 21.92 [95% CI 2.99-160.44]; P = 0.38, I² = 0%) was more efficacious than MI alone. The NMA revealed that MI + DCI was more efficacious than Met (OR 14.70 [95% CI 2.31-93.58]) and MI (OR 16.51 [95% CI 2.56-106.64]). MI + DCI was ranked best at improving menstrual frequency.

Hyperandrogenism

In terms of reducing TT, the TMA and NMA both revealed that Met + BBR [(TMA: MD -11.53 [95% CI (-16.91)-(-6.15)]; P = 1.00, I² = 0%; NMA: MD -11.53 [95% CI (-17.62)-(-5.44)]) and Met + TZDs [(TMA: MD -3.14 [95% CI (-6.19)-(-0.09)]; P = 0.44, I² = 0%; NMA: MD -3.66 [95% CI (-6.60)-(-0.72)] were superior to Met alone. The NMA revealed that MI + DCI was more efficacious than Met, MI, and DCI [MDs ranging from -6.72 [95% CI (-10.24) -(-3.20)] for Met to -7.70 [95% CI (-14.90)-(-0.50)] for DCI]). Treatment with TZDs was less efficacious than Met (MD 3.90 [95% CI 1.10-6.71]). The SUCRA values were as follows: Met + BBR (92.2%), MI + DCI (75.4%), and Met + TZDs (59.4%). No difference was found in comparisons of SHBG, AND, and mF-G scores.

Obesity

With respect to BMI reduction, the TMA showed that Met + BBR (MD -1.85 [95% CI (-2.76)-(-0.94)]; P = 0.32, I² = 0%) was superior to Met monotherapy, whereas the NMA revealed that Met + BBR was more efficacious than Met, MI, TZDs, and Met + TZDs (MDs ranging from -1.85 [95% CI (-2.76)-(-0.94)] for Met to -3.08 [95% CI (-4.10)-(-2.05)] for TZDs). Met + BBR ranked best among all the treatments at reducing BMI. However, both the TMA and NMA revealed that there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to WHR reduction.

Glycometabolism

With respect to lowering FPG, the TMA revealed that there were no significant differences between each of the investigated agents. The NMA revealed that TZDs (MD -0.21 [95% CI (-0.21)-(-0.02)]) were more efficacious than Met. Additionally, with respect to lowering FINS, the TMA revealed that Met + TZDs (MD -1.83 [95% CI (-3.12)-(-0.55)]; P = 0.19, I² = 37%) was more efficacious than Met alone. The NMA did not reveal any significant differences among the groups.

With respect to decrease in HOMA-IR, the TMA showed that TZDs (MD -0.92 [95% CI (-1.64)-(-0.19)]; P <0.00001, I² = 97%), Met + TZDs (MD -0.85 [95% CI (-1.21)-(-0.49)]; P = 0.04, I² = 65%), and Met + BBR (MD -0.25 [95% CI (-0.36)-(-0.14)]; P = 0.37, I² = 0%) were more efficacious than Met alone. The NMA revealed that TZDs, Met + TZDs, and MI + DCI were all superior to Met (MDs ranging from -0.72 [95% CI (-1.11)-(-0.34)] for TZDs to -0.89 [95% CI (-1.46)-(-0.32)] for MI + DCI), with MI + DCI being ranked the best with a SUCRA value of 80.8%. The SUCRA values for the other agents were as follows: 79.9% and 68.6% for Met + TZDs and TZDs, respectively.

Lipid levels

Parameters assessed for improvement in blood lipids included TG, TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C. In terms of reducing TG and TC levels, the TMA revealed that Met + TZDs (TG: MD -0.24 [95% CI (-0.43)-(-0.06)]; P = 0.74, I² = 0%; TC: MD -0.30 [95% CI (-0.53)-(-0.07)]; P = 0.98, I² = 0%) was more efficacious than Met alone. In terms of reducing levels of TG, the NMA showed that Met + TZDs was superior to Met (MD -0.08 [95% CI (-0.16)-(0.00)]) and TZDs (MD -0.51 [95% CI (-0.88)-(-0.14)]), and was the best intervention among treatments. The NMA also showed that BBR (MD -0.03 [95% CI (-0.06)-(0.00)]) was more efficacious than Met. However, for TC no significant differences were found in the NMA.

Furthermore, the TMA also suggested that MI (MD 0.05 [95% CI 0.03-0.07]; P = 0.10, I² = 57%) was associated with higher HDL-C than Met. The NMA revealed that treatment with TZDs was superior to Met in increasing HDL-C (MD 0.13 [95% CI 0.03-0.24]) and decreasing LDL-C (MD -0.19 [95% CI (-0.27)-(-0.11)]) and was the best intervention among the different treatments.

Adverse events

In terms of the frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events during treatment, both TMA and NMA revealed that treatment with TZDs (TMA: OR 0.11 [95% CI 0.03-0.41]; P = 0.88, I² = 0%; NMA: OR 0.13 [95% CI 0.04-0.46]) was inferior to Met. With respect to the incidence of peripheral edema, the TMA revealed that TZDs were more frequent than Met (OR 67.89 [95% CI 3.96, 1163.28]; P&I² NA), no significant differences were found in the NMA. Furthermore, both the TMA and NMA did not show any significant differences between the different treatment regimens for the incidence rate of muscle spasms, while no drug increased odds of transaminase abnormalities. Of note, these results should be interpreted with caution since results for MI, MI + DCI, and BBR were based on a single trial, and in some of the trials the description of adverse events was subjective and unclear.

To our knowledge, this is the first report on an NMA used to assess the efficacy and safety of oral insulin sensitizers (metformin, thiazolidinediones, inositol, and berberine) as an adjunct therapy to improve irregular menses, hyperandrogenism, and glucolipid metabolism abnormalities in women with PCOS. The results obtained are based on 22 trials that included 1079 women, randomly assigned to eight different interventions. Overall, treatment with MI + DCI was associated with the best improvement in menstrual frequency. MI + DCI, Met + TZDs, and Met + BBR were superior to Met for TT reduction, while MI + DCI, Met + TZDs, and TZDs significantly lowered HOMA-IR than Met alone. TZDs were superior to Met in decreasing FPG, TG, LDL-C levels, and increasing HDL-C level, while Met + TZDs was associated with lower TG levels compared to Met and TZDs monotherapy. Furthermore, Met + BBR was more efficacious than Met alone in reducing BMI.

Metformin is a classic insulin sensitizer, that inhibits hepatic glucose production, thereby decreasing glucose levels [39]. Many studies have already demonstrated its ability to improve menstruation frequency, reduce androgen excess, and decrease insulin resistance in PCOS. However, it also often associated with gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal discomfort [40]. In the current study, in four of the RCTs, a total of 12 women withdrew due to intolerance rising from gastrointestinal side effects [14,19,23,26]. There were other reports of mild stomach discomfort that resolved spontaneously within a few weeks [13,15,16,18,20,21,28].

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) decrease hepatic and peripheral insulin resistance directly through activation of the nuclear hormone receptor PPARγ and have a well-documented effect of improving hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia. TZDs also improve the menstrual cycle and ovulation and reduce androgen levels in women with PCOS[41, 42]. However, these clinical benefits have largely been ignored due to safety issues and side effects, such as weight gain, peripheral edema, and even heart failure [43]. In our study, one trial with pioglitazone showed 40% of women with mild peripheral edema and 11% with muscle spasms [16], although other adverse events were not found and gastrointestinal adverse events were less frequent with TZDs than Met. Furthermore, compared with that by Met, TZDs had a more beneficial effect on improving glucolipid metabolism; our NMA revealed that treatment with TZDs was associated with lower FPG, TG, LDL-C levels, and higher HDL-C level. The SUCRA analysis revealed that treatment with TZDs was the best (among these treatments) for decreasing LDL-C and increasing HDL-C, indicating its potential ability to reduce a patients’ risk of cardiovascular diseases in PCOS.

Our NMA revealed that the combination of Met + TZDs was more effective than Met alone at improving menstruation frequency, and reducing TT, HOMA-IR, and TG. The SUCRA value showed that Met + TZDs was the best intervention for reducing TG level. The TMA also demonstrated that Met + TZDs was superior to Met monotherapy at reducing FINS and TC level. Our previous NMA in overweight women with PCOS revealed that Met + TZDs was superior to Met in recovering menstrual function, whereas there were no evident differences in TT and FINS[44]. Different inclusion criteria might explain these discrepancies. Additionally, three RCTs reported gastrointestinal discomfort in the Met + TZDs group [20,21,23], which was not significantly different than the Met alone group.

Inositol acts as a second messenger with insulin-like functions and is safe and well-tolerated[45]. The two most common isomers of inositol are MI, which has been shown to significantly improve ovulatory function [46], and DCI, which is able to reduce peripheral insulin resistance in patients with PCOS [47]. Our NMA is in line with other pairwise meta-analyses, showing that there is no apparent benefit of MI or DCI alone compared with Met [48-50]. Recent studies have proposed that a combination of both MI and DCI, at a plasma ratio of 40:1, can restore normal hormonal function quicker than MI or DCI alone [51]. This is the first report on the analysis of efficacy of Met and MI + DCI in women with PCOS; it revealed that among all of the agents investigated here MI + DCI appeared to be the best intervention for restoring regular menses and decreasing HOMA-IR, while the combination was also able to reduce TT better than Met. No side effects have been described in clinical studies examining the effect of inositol [26,44].

Berberine (BBR), a natural isoquinoline alkaloid, has been studied in various randomized clinical trials in patients with PCOS and has been shown to be safe and promising for decreasing insulin resistance, lowering blood lipids, and restoring ovulation [52-55]. In the only previous pairwise meta-analysis that compared Met, BBR, and their combination in insulin resistant patients with PCOS, there were no significant differences between the different treatment groups [56]. In the current study, only one trial that examined BBR and Met was included. As seen from the NMA, BBR was superior to Met in reducing TG. Met + BBR was associated with a greater reduction in TT and BMI than that by Met alone and was the best intervention among the investigated agents tested here. These findings should be interpreted with caution since they are based on data from only two head-to-head trials of low quality [33, 34]. Further high-quality trials to verify these potential favorable effects in PCOS are therefore required. One person in the berberine group withdrew due to gastrointestinal side effects [32].

Strengths and limitations

Our findings reflect the comparative efficacy and safety of monotherapy versus a combination of different oral insulin sensitizers (metformin, thiazolidinediones, inositol, and berberine) in the treatment of PCOS. Previous related meta-analyses have mainly been of pairwise design that focused on individual agents and have given inconsistent results, our NMA incorporated both direct and indirect comparisons of interventions into a single analysis and provided a ranking of the available interventions. Through a comprehensive search and a rigorous review of the design of the randomized clinical trials, we aimed to reduce the likelihood of selection bias. We focused on the analysis of menstrual and ovulation abnormalities, hyperandrogenism, obesity, glucolipid metabolism, and adverse events in women with PCOS to provide a comprehensive reference for its clinical treatment.

However, the present study still has some limitations that must be noted. First, very few literature reports met the inclusion criteria of treatment without contraceptives and/or intervention of ovulation inducing drugs to effectively verify the independent effects of drugs on efficacy. Second, there were markedly different dosages, durations of treatment, and small sample sizes that could contribute to sample bias, selection bias, and high heterogeneity. Third, some of trials did not have a specific analysis of women who dropped out or missed a follow-up.

In conclusion, for women with PCOS, MI combined with DCI and Met combined with TZDs appear to be superior than Met alone in improving insulin resistance and decreasing total testosterone. MI combined with DCI appears to be particularly efficacious in menstrual recovery. TZDs and TZDs combined with Met seem to offer the additional advantage of improving lipid metabolism. However, our findings are limited by the small number and low quality of available studies, and therefore more rigorous and high-level RCTs are needed to further guide the clinical management of women with PCOS, especially those with insulin resistance.

PCOS Polycystic ovary syndrome

Met Metformin

TZDs Thiazolidinediones

MI Myo-inositol

DCI D-chiro-inositol

BBR Berberine

TT Total testosterone

SHBG Sex hormone binding globulin

AND Androstenedione

mF-G score Modified Ferriman-Gallwey score

BMI Body mass index

WHR Waist-hip ratio

FPG Fasting plasma glucose

FINS Fasting insulin

HOMA-IR Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance

TG Triglyceride

TC Total cholesterol

HDL-C High density lipoprotein cholesterol

LDL-C Low density lipoprotein cholesterol

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 81570765), and the 345 Talent Project of ShengJing Hospital of China Medical University.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional file.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Authors' contributions

H.Z., C.X., J.Z., and B.H. conceived the study. H.Z., C.X., and B.H. designed the study. H.Z. wrote the study protocol and registered the study protocol. H.Z., C.X. selected the articles and extracted the data. H.Z. and C.X., J.Z., and B.H. developed the statistical methods and analyzed the data. H.Z. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. B.H. critically checked its content and approved its final version. All authors agreed with the results and conclusions of this article.

Contributor Information

Han Zhao, Email: [email protected].

Chuan Xing, Email: [email protected].

Jiaqi Zhang, Email: [email protected].

Bing He, Email: [email protected].

Azziz R, Carmina E, Chen Z, Dunaif A, Laven JS, Legro RS, Lizneva D, Natterson-Horowtiz B, Teede HJ, Yildiz BO. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;267(2):2056-676X. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.57
Lizneva D, Suturina L, Walker W, Brakta S, Gavrilova-Jordan L, Azziz R. Criteria, prevalence, and phenotypes of polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertility and sterility. 2016;106(1):6-15. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.003
Teede HJ, Misso ML, Costello MF, Dokras A, Laven J, Moran L, Piltonen T, Norman RJ, International PCOS Network. Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(3):364-379. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.004
Aversa A, La Vignera S, Rago R, Gambineri A, Nappi RE, Calogero AE, Ferlin A. Fundamental Concepts and Novel Aspects of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: Expert Consensus Resolutions. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:516. doi:10.3389/fendo.2020.00516
McCartney CR, Marshall JC. CLINICAL PRACTICE. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(1):54-64. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1514916
Renato, Pasquali. Metformin in women with PCOS, Pros. Endocrine. 2015;48(2):422-426. doi:10.1007/s12020-014-0311-1
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-7-16
Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Hum Reprod. 2004;19(1):41-47. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh098
Azziz R, Carmina E, Dewailly D, Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Escobar-Morreale HF, Futterweit W, Janssen OE, Legro RS, Norman RJ, Taylor AE, Witchel SF, Androgen Excess Society. Positions statement: criteria for defining polycystic ovary syndrome as a predominantly hyperandrogenic syndrome: an Androgen Excess Society guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(11):4237-4245. doi:10.1210/jc.2006-0178
Chinese Endocrinologist Association, Chinese Medical Doctor Association. Endocrinologist consensus on the management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Chin J Endocrinol Metab. 2018;34(1):1-7. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6699.2018.01.001
Zawadri J. Diagnostic criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome : towards a rational approach. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Current issues in endocrinology and metabolism. 1992.
Ahmad J, Shukla N, Khan AR, Ahmed F, Siddiqui MA. Comparison of metabolic effects of Metformin and Rosiglitazone in the Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome [PCOS]: A Prospective, Parallel, Randomized, Open-Label Study. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Clinical Research & Reviews. 2008;2(1):37-46. doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2007.12.003
Mohiyiddeen L, Watson AJ, Apostolopoulos NV, Berry R, Alexandraki KI, Jude EB. Effects of low-dose metformin and rosiglitazone on biochemical, clinical, metabolic and biophysical outcomes in polycystic ovary syndrome. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33(2):165-170. doi:10.3109/01443615.2012.745839
Yilmaz M, Bukan N, Ayvaz G, Karakoç A, Törüner F, Cakir N, Arslan M. The effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on oxidative stress and homocysteine levels in lean patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3333-3340. doi:10.1093/humrep/dei258
Sangeeta S. Metformin and pioglitazone in polycystic ovarian syndrome: a comparative study. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2012;62(5):551-556. doi:10.1007/s13224-012-0183-3
Naka KK, Kalantaridou SN, Kravariti M, Bechlioulis A, Kazakos N, Calis KA, Makrigiannakis A, Katsouras CS, Chrousos GP, Tsatsoulis A, Michalis LK. Effect of the insulin sensitizers metformin and pioglitazone on endothelial function in young women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1): 203-9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.058
Jensterle M, Sebestjen M, Janez A, Prezelj J, Kocjan T, Keber I, Pfeifer M. Improvement of endothelial function with metformin and rosiglitazone treatment in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Eur J Endocrinol. 2008;159(4):399-406. doi:10.1530/EJE-08-0507
Ortega-González C, Cardoza L, Coutiño B, Hidalgo R, Arteaga-Troncoso G, Parra A. Insulin sensitizing drugs increase the endogenous dopaminergic tone in obese insulin-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Endocrinol. 2005;184(1):233-239. doi:10.1677/joe.1.05844
Zeng H, Huang Y, Wu J, Xie TQ, Liu DK, Huang QL, Chen Z, Liu JP. Effects of pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin hydrochloride tablets on metabolic parameters and hormones in polycystic ovary syndrome. Progress in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020;29(11):7-10. doi: 10.13283/j.cnki.xdfckjz.2020.11.031
Wang X, Gao S, Zhang X. Metformin and pioglitazone plus metformin for patients with polycystic ovary syndrome combined with insulin resistance.Central South Pharmacy. 2014;(2)181-184. doi:10.7539/j.issn.1672-2981.2014.02.023
Liang N, Zhang Z. Effects of metformin and pioglitazone on sexual hormones and metabolic level in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Guangxi Medical Journal. 2019;41: 148-152. doi:10.11675/j . issn. 0253-4304.2019. 02.02
Sohrevardi SM, Nosouhi F, Hossein Khalilzade S, Kafaie P, Karimi-Zarchi M, Halvaei I, Mohsenzadeh M. Evaluating the effect of insulin sensitizers metformin and pioglitazone alone and in combination on women with polycystic ovary syndrome: An RCT. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2016;14(12):743-754.
Jamilian M, Farhat P, Foroozanfard F, Afshar Ebrahimi F, Aghadavod E, Bahmani F, Badehnoosh B, Jamilian H, Asemi Z. Comparison of myo-inositol and metforminon clinical, metabolic and genetic parameters in polycystic ovary syndrome: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Endocrinology. 2017;87(2): 194-200. doi:10.1111/cen.13366
Shokrpour M, Foroozanfard F, Afshar Ebrahimi F, Vahedpoor Z, Aghadavod E, Ghaderi A, Asemi Z. Comparison of myo-inositol and metformin on glycemic control, lipid profiles, and gene expression related to insulin and lipid metabolism in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Gynecological Endocrinology. 2019;35(5): 406-411. doi:10.1080/09513590.2018.1540570
Fruzzetti F, Perini D, Russo M, Bucci F, Gadducci A. Comparison of two insulin sensitizers, metformin and myo-inositol, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Gynecol Endocrinol.2017;33(1):39-42. doi:10.1080/09513590.2016.1236078
Nehra J, Kaushal J, Singhal SR, Ghalaut VS. A comparative study of myo inositol versus metformin on biochemical profile in polycystic ovarian syndrome in women. International journal of pharmace and research. 2017;8(4): 1664-1670. doi:10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.8(4).1664-70
Du J, Wu RR, Lin XF, Ke WN, Du Y. Clinical effect of myo-inositol combined with D-chiro-inositol on insulin resistant polycystic ovary syndrome. China Medicine. 2018;13(9):1389-1393. doi:10.3760/j.issn.1673-4777.2018.09.027
Pizzo A, Laganà AS, Barbaro L. Comparison between effects of myo-inositol and D-chiro-inositol on ovarian function and metabolic factors in women with PCOS. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30: 205-8. doi:10.3109/09513590.2013.860120
Le Donne M, Metro D, Alibrandi A, Papa M, Benvenga S. Effects of three treatment modalities (diet, myoinositol or myoinositol associated with D-chiro-inositol) on clinical and body composition outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019; 23: 2293-2301. doi:10.26355/eurrev_201903_17278
Nordio M, Proietti E.The combined therapy with myo-inositol and D-chiro-inositol reduces the risk of metabolic disease in PCOS overweight patients compared to myo-inositol supplementation alone. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16: 575-581.
Li XB, Kuang H, Luo Y, Chen QX. Clinical Observation of Berberine in Intervening Insulin Resistance of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Journal of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2017;(2)172-177. doi: 10.13359/j.cnki.gzxbtcm.2017.02.006
Wang P, Wang H, Wang Y. Clinical analysis of metformin combined with berberine in the treatment of obese polycystic ovary syndrome. Chinese Primary Health Care. 2016;(30):77-78. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-568X.2016.10.0032
Wang LX, Kong YZ, Ren YW, Shen M. Therapeutic Effect of Berberine Combined with Dfformin for Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Insulin Resistance. Journal of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University. 2011;(5):713-715. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-5509.2011.05.034
Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, Thomas J. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142. doi:10.1002/14651858.ED000142
Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):607-617. doi:10.1177/0272989X12458724
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-13
Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163-171. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016
Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Christakou CD, Kandaraki E, Economou FN. Metformin: an old medication of new fashion: evolving new molecular mechanisms and clinical implications in polycystic ovary syndrome. Eur J Endocrinol. 2010;162(2):193-212. doi:10.1530/EJE-09-0733
Rena G, Hardie DG, Pearson ER. The mechanisms of action of metformin. Diabetologia. 2017;60(9):1577-1585. doi:10.1007/s00125-017-4342-z
Macut D, Bjekić-Macut J, Rahelić D, Doknić M. Insulin and the polycystic ovary syndrome. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;130:163-170. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2017.06.011
Panunzi S, Maltese S, Verrastro O, Labbate L, De Gaetano A, Pompili M, Capristo E, Bornstein SR, Mingrone G. Pioglitazone and bariatric surgery are the most effective treatments for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: A hierarchical network meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;10.1111/dom.14304. doi:10.1111/dom.14304
Lebovitz HE. Thiazolidinediones: the Forgotten Diabetes Medications. Curr Diab Rep. 2019;19(12):151. doi:10.1007/s11892-019-1270-y
Xing C, Li CZ, He B. Insulin Sensitizers for Improving the Endocrine and Metabolic Profile in Overweight Women With PCOS. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(9):2950-2963. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa337
Sortino MA, Salomone S, Carruba MO, Drago F. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Insights into the Therapeutic Approach with Inositols.Front Pharmacol.2017;8:341. doi:10.3389/fphar.2017.00341
Bevilacqua A, Bizzarri M. Inositols in Insulin Signaling and Glucose Metabolism. Int J Endocrinol. 2018;2018:1968450. doi:10.1155/2018/1968450
Ravanos K, Monastra G, Pavlidou T, Goudakou M, Prapas N. Can high levels of D-chiro-inositol in follicular fluid exert detrimental effects on blastocyst quality?. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21(23):5491-5498. doi:10.26355/eurrev_201712_13940
Facchinetti F, Orrù B, Grandi G, Unfer V. Short-term effects of metformin and myo-inositol in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS): a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(3):198-206. doi:10.1080/09513590.2018.1540578
Arentz S, Smith CA, Abbott J, Bensoussan A. Nutritional supplements and herbal medicines for women with polycystic ovary syndrome; a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2017;17(1):500. doi:10.1186/s12906-017-2011-x
Morley LC, Tang T, Yasmin E, Norman RJ, Balen AH. Insulin-sensitising drugs (metformin, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, D-chiro-inositol) for women with polycystic ovary syndrome, oligo amenorrhoea and subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11(11):CD003053. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003053.pub6
Gateva A, Unfer V, Kamenov Z. The use of inositol(s) isomers in the management of polycystic ovary syndrome: a comprehensive review. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018;34(7):545-550. doi:10.1080/09513590.2017.1421632
Wei W, Zhao H, Wang A, Sui M, Liang K, Deng H, Ma Y, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Guan Y. A clinical study on the short-term effect of berberine in comparison to metformin on the metabolic characteristics of women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Eur J Endocrinol. 2012;166(1):99-105. doi:10.1530/EJE-11-0616
Rondanelli M, Infantino V, Riva A, Petrangolini G, Faliva MA, Peroni G, Naso M, Nichetti M, Spadaccini D, Gasparri C, Perna S. Polycystic ovary syndrome management: a review of the possible amazing role of berberine. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;301(1):53-60. doi:10.1007/s00404-020-05450-4
Ju J, Li J, Lin Q, Xu H. Efficacy and safety of berberine for dyslipidaemias: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Phytomedicine. 2018;50:25-34. doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2018.09.212
Xie L, Zhang D, Ma H, He H, Xia Q, Shen W, Chang H, Deng Y, Wu Q, Cong J, Wang CC, Wu X. The Effect of Berberine on Reproduction and Metabolism in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2019;7918631. doi:10.1155/2019/7918631

Li MF, Zhou XM, Li XL. The Effect of Berberine on Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients with Insulin Resistance (PCOS-IR): A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018;2532935. doi:10.1155/2018/2532935

Table 1: Characteristics of studies included in the network meta-analysis

Study	Year	Region	Drugs	Size	F-up(wks)	Efficacy
Ahmad [13]	2008	India	Met vs TZDs	31/30	24w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, BMI, WHR, TT, AND, mF-G score, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Mohiyididden [14]	2013	UK	Met vs TZDs	17/18	12w	FPG, FINS, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, BMI, TT, SHBG, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Yilmaz [15]	2005	Turkey	Met vs TZDs	25/25	12w	BMI, WHR, AND, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, LDL, HDL, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Sangeeta [16]	2012	India	Met vs TZDs	50/50	24w	FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, HDL, mF-G score, TT, SHBG, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Naka [17]	2011	Greece	Met vs TZDs	15/14	24w	FPG, FINS, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, mF-G score, TT, SHBG, BMI, WHR, Adverse events
Jensterl [18]	2008	Slovenia	Met vs TZDs	15/11	24w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, BMI, TT,AND, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Ortega [19]	2005	Mexico	Met vs TZDs	18/17	24w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, BMI, WHR, mF-G score, AND, Adverse events
Zeng [20]	2020	China	Met vs Met+TZDs	44/44	12w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, BMI, TT, Adverse events
Wang X [21]	2014	China	Met vs Met+TZDs	43/43	24w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, HDL, LDL, BMI, WHR, TT, SHBG, mF-G score, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Liang [22]	2019	China	Met vs TZDs vs Met+TZDs	22/21/23	12w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, HDL, LDL, TC, TG, BMI, WHR, TT, Menstrual frequency
Sohrevardi [23]	2016	Iran	Met vs TZDs vs Met+TZDs	22/21/23	12w	PFG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, BMI, TT, WHR, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Jamilian [24]	2017	Iran	Met vs MI	30/30	12w	BMI, SHBG, TT, mF-G score
Shokrpour [25]	2019	Iran	Met vs MI	27/26	12w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, BMI, TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C
Fruzzetti [26]	2016	Italy	Met vs MI	22/24	24w	HOMA-IR, BMI, mF-G score, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Nehra [27]	2017	India	Met vs MI	30/30	12w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, TT, BMI, WHR
Nehra	2017	India	Met vs MI	30/30	24w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, TT, BMI, WHR
Du [28]	2018	China	Met vs MI+DCI	32/32	24w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, AND, TT, SHBG, Menstrual frequency, Adverse events
Pizzo [29]	2014	Italy	MI vs DCI	25/25	24w	HOMA-IR, BMI, mF-G score, TT,AND, SHGB, Menstrual frequency
Donne [30]	2019	Italy	MI vs MI+DCI	10/12	12w	mF-G score, WHR, BMI, Menstrual frequency
Donne	2019	Italy	MI vs MI+DCI	10/12	24w	mF-G score, WHR, BMI, Menstrual frequency
Nordio [31]	2012	Italy	MI vs MI+DCI	24/26	12w	BMI, WHR, FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TT, SHBG, AND
Nordio	2012	Italy	MI vs MI+DCI	24/26	24w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, BMI, WHR, TT, SHBG, AND, Menstrual frequency
Li [32]	2017	China	Met vs BBR	29/26	12w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, BMI, TT, Adverse events
Wang P [33]	2016	China	Met vs Met+BBR	42/42	12w	HOMA-IR, BMI, WHR
Wang L [34]	2011	China	Met vs Met+BBR	28/28	12w	FPG, FINS, HOMA-IR, BMI, TT

Abbreviations: Met, Metformin; TZDs, Thiazolidinediones; MI, Myo-inositol; DCI, D-chiro-inositol; BBR, Berberine; TT, total testosterone; SHBG, sex hormone binding globulin; AND, androstenedione; mF-G score, modified Ferriman-Gallwey score; BMI, body mass index; WHR, waist-hip ratio; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; FINS, fasting insulin; HOMA-IR, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance; TG, triglyceride; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low density lipoprotein cholesterol;

Table 2A: NMA and TMA results for menstrual frequency, total testosterone, BMI, and glycometabolism.

Outcomes	Studies	Participants	Traditional pairwise meta-analysis (TMA)		Network meta-analysis (NMA)
Outcomes	Studies	Participants	Heterogeneity	Effect Estimate (95% CI)	Studies	Effect Estimate (95% CI)
Menstrual frequency
TZDs vs Met	6	299	(P = 0.002); I² = 74%	1.17 [0.43, 3.17]	7	1.20 [0.52, 2.76]
TZDs + Met vs Met	3	167	(P = 0.88); I² = 0%	3.91 [1.75, 8.72]	3	2.41 [0.75, 7.71]
MI vs Met	1	46	Not applicable	1.11 [0.24, 5.11]	4	0.89 [0.14, 5.56]
MI + DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	11.67 [2.37, 57.36]	3	14.70 [2.31, 93.58]
MI + DCI vs MI	2	44	(P = 0.38); I² = 0%	21.92 [2.99, 160.44]	3	16.51 [2.56, 106.64]
TT
TZDs vs Met	7	322	(P = 0.22); I² = 27%	5.27 [0.98, 9.55]	8	3.90[1.10, 6.71]
TZDs + Met vs Met	4	307	(P = 0.44); I² = 0%	-3.14 [-6.19, -0.09]	4	-3.66 [-6.60, -0.72]
MI vs Met	2	120	(P =0.66); I² = 0%	0.31 [-0.69, 1.32]	6	0.37 [-0.63, 1.37]
MI + DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	-5.48 [-10.27, -0.69]	3	-6.72 [-10.24, -3.20]
BBR + Met vs Met	2	140	(P = 1.00); I² = 0%	-11.53 [-16.91, -6.15]	2	-11.53 [-16.91, -6.15]
MI + DCI vs MI	2	72	(P = 0.63); I² = 0%	-8.50 [-13.60, -3.40]	3	-7.09 [-10.62, -3.56]
BMI
TZDs vs Met	8	322	(P = 0.42); I² = 1%	1.26 [0.78, 1.75]	7	1.23 [0.75, 1.70]
TZDs + Met vs Met	4	171	(P = 0.68); I² = 0%	-0.03 [-1.02, 0.95]	3	0.22 [-0.71, 1.14]
MI vs Met	5	279	(P = 0.47); I² = 0%	0.28 [0.06, 0.50]	8	0.29 [0.09, 0.49]
MI + DCI vs Met	/	/	/	/	3	-0.19 [-1.61, 1.23]
BBR + Met vs Met	2	140	(P = 0.32); I² = 0%	-1.85 [-2.76, -0.94]	2	-1.85 [-2.76, -0.94]
MI + DCI vs MI	3	80	(P = 0.98); I² = 0%	-0.48 [-1.89, 0.93]	3	-0.48[-1.89, 0.93]
FPG
TZD vs Met	7	272	(P ＜0.00001); I² = 86%	-0.10 [-0.21, 0.01]	5	-0.12[-0.21, -0.02]
TZD+Met vs Met	5	307	(P = 0.79); I² = 0%	-0.05 [-0.15, 0.06]	5	0.00 [-0.14, 0.15]
MI vs Met	3	173	(P = 0.22); I² = 34%	-0.05 [-0.12, 0.02]	5	-0.05 [-0.19, 0.09]
MI+DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	-0.09 [-0.17, -0.01]	6	-0.18 [-0.37, 0.02]
MI + DCI vs MI	2	72	(P = 0.22); I² = 35%	-0.25 [-0.56, 0.05]	3	-0.13 [-0.33, 0.08]
FINS
TZDs vs Met	8	357	(P ＜0.00001); I² = 97%	-2.50 [-6.23, 1.23]	7	-2.38 [-4.94, 0.19]
TZDs + Met vs Met	4	259	(P = 0.19); I² = 37%	-1.83 [-3.12, -0.55]	4	-2.56 [-6.03, 0.92]
MI vs Met	3	173	(P = 0.23); I² = 32%	-0.22 [-0.75, 0.32]	5	-0.40 [-4.08, 3.27]
MI + DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	-1.37 [-1.56, -1.18]	3	-1.38[-6.14, 3.38]
MI + DCI vs MI	2	72	(P = 0.36); I² = 0%	-0.76 [-1.94, 0.42]	3	-0.98 [-5.28, 3.33]
HOMA-IR
TZDs vs Met	6	317	(P ＜0.00001); I² = 97%	-0.92 [-1.64, -0.19]	4	-0.72 [-1.11, -0.34]
TZDs + Met vs Met	4	259	(P = 0.04); I² = 65%	-0.85 [-1.21, -0.49]	4	-0.86 [-1.29, -0.43]
MI vs Met	4	219	(P = 0.004); I² = 78%	-0.20 [-0.42, 0.01]	6	-0.28 [-0.66, 0.10]
MI + DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	-1.15 [-1.25, -1.05]	3	-0.89 [-1.46, -0.32]
BBR + Met vs Met	2	140	(P = 0.37); I² = 0%	-0.25 [-0.36, -0.14]	2	-0.25 [-0.81, 0.31]
MI + DCI vs MI	2	72	(P = 0.97); I² = 0%	-0.39 [-0.83, 0.06]	3	-0.61 [-1.18, -0.05]

Abbreviations: Met, Metformin; TZDs, Thiazolidinediones; MI, Myo-inositol; DCI, D-chiro-inositol; BBR, Berberine; TT, total testosterone; BMI, body mass index; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; FINS, fasting insulin; HOMA-IR, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance; TG, triglyceride; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low density lipoprotein cholesterol;

Table 2B: NMA and TMA results for lipid levels and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Outcomes	Studies	Participants	Traditional pairwise meta-analysis (TMA)		Network meta-analysis (NMA)
Outcomes	Studies	Participants	Heterogeneity	Effect Estimate (95% CI)	Studies	Effect Estimate (95% CI)
TG
TZD vs Met	7	261	(P = 0.0002); I² = 77%	-0.01 [-0.19, 0.16]	7	-0.66 [-1.00, -0.32]
TZD+Met vs Met	3	178	(P = 0.74); I² = 0%	-0.24 [-0.43, -0.06]	3	-0.08 [-0.16, -0.00]
MI vs Met	3	173	(P = 0.60); I² = 0%	-0.03 [-0.06, 0.00]	3	0.14 [0.07, 0.21]
MI+DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	-0.08 [-0.16, -0.00]	4	0.21 [-0.26, 0.68]
TZD+Met vs TZD	2	88	(P = 0.10); I² = 0%	0.15 [-0.18, 0.48]	3	-0.51 [-0.88, -0.14]
TC
TZD vs Met	8	346	(P < 0.00001); I² = 93%	-0.06 [-0.41, 0.29]	8	-0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]
TZD+Met vs Met	3	178	(P = 0.98); I² = 0%	-0.30 [-0.53, -0.07]	3	-0.15 [-0.57, 0.27]
MI vs Met	3	173	(P = 0.67); I² = 0%	0.03 [-0.01, 0.07]	3	0.19 [-0.29, 0.66]
MI+DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	-0.07 [-0.16, 0.02]	4	-0.07 [-0.69, 0.55]
HDL
TZD vs Met	8	346	(P < 0.00001); I² = 96%	0.14 [-0.03, 0.30]	8	0.13 [0.03, 0.24]
TZD+Met vs Met	4	259	(P = 0.53); I² = 0%	-0.00 [-0.09, 0.09]	4	0.05 [-0.10, 0.20]
MI vs Met	3	173	(P = 0.10); I² = 57%	0.05 [0.03, 0.07]	3	0.02 [-0.14, 0.17]
MI+DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	0.00 [-0.11, 0.11]	4	0.00 [-0.28, 0.28]
LDL
TZD vs Met	7	261	(P = 0.02); I² = 59%	-0.11 [-0.29, 0.08]	7	-0.19 [-0.27, -0.11]
TZD+Met vs Met	4	259	(P = 0.96); I² = 0%	-0.10 [-0.25, 0.05]	4	-0.08 [-0.24, 0.07]
MI vs Met	3	173	(P = 0.84); I² = 0%	0.01 [-0.03, 0.05]	3	0.01 [-0.03, 0.05]
MI+DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	-0.07 [-0.21, 0.07]	4	-0.07 [-0.21, 0.07]
Gastrointestinal adverse events
TZD vs Met	6	253	(P = 0.88); I² = 0%	0.11 [0.03, 0.41]	6	0.13 [0.04, 0.46]
TZD+Met vs Met	3	237	(P = 0.33); I² = 11%	0.67 [0.23, 1.93]	3	0.76 [0.25, 2.27]
MI vs Met	1	50	Not applicable	0.13 [0.01, 2.58]	1	0.13 [0.01, 2.58]
MI+DCI vs Met	1	64	Not applicable	0.08 [0.00, 1.45]	1	0.08 [0.00, 1.45]
BBR vs Met	1	60	Not applicable	3.10 [0.12, 79.23]	1	3.10 [0.12, 79.23]

supplenmentalfilereproductivehealth.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 18 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in Reproductive Health →

Editorial decision: Major revision
16 Jun, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed at journal
04 May, 2021
Reviews received at journal
04 May, 2021
Review #2 received at journal
03 May, 2021
Review #1 received at journal
03 May, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
14 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
06 Apr, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
01 Apr, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
28 Mar, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
28 Mar, 2021
Editor invited by journal
28 Mar, 2021
First submitted to journal
22 Mar, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Comparative Efficacy of Oral Insulin Sensitizers Metformin, Thiazolidinediones, Inositol, and Berberine in Improving Endocrine and Metabolic Profiles in Women With Pcos: A Network Meta-analysis

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Plain English Summary

Background

Materials And Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1