Effects of oral contraceptives on the quality of life of women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a crossover randomized controlled trial

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-22295/v1

Download PDF

Research

Effects of oral contraceptives on the quality of life of women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a crossover randomized controlled trial

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-22295/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 31 Aug, 2020

Read the published version in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background and objective A limited number of studies have evaluated the effects of oral contraceptives (OCs) on the quality of life (QOL) of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients. This study aimed to compare the effects of using OCs containing levonorgestrel (LNG) and those containing desogestrel (DSG), cyproterone acetate (CPA) or drospirenone (DRSP) for 6 months on the QOL with PCOS.

Methods In this crossover randomized controlled 6-arm trial, 200 eligible patients with PCOS scheduled for OC therapy were randomly assigned to one of the 6 study arms. All 6 arms include two 6-month treatment periods, one period with OCs containing LNG, and the other with each of the 3 OCs containing DSG, CPA, or DRSP. Outcomes of interest were the total score of QOL and its domains.

Results Finally, a total of 88 patients were analyzed for this study. The results showed that use of OCs containing DSG, CPA, and DRSP for 3 months was not associated with significant differences in the total scores of QOL compared to those OCs containing LNG, whereas, after 6 months of treatment, patients treated with OCs containing CPA had more improvements in their total scores of QOL, in comparison to OCs containing LNG (P < 0.042). We found no significant differences in QoL domains, including psychosocial–emotional, self-image, fertility, sexual function, hirsutism, and obesity-menstrual disorders after 3- 6 months of treatment with DSG, CPA, or DRSP, compared to LNG. The sequence and period effects were not significant in any of the analyses at 3 and 6 months of treatment. The carry-over effect was not significant for most outcomes assessed.

Conclusions This crossover study demonstrated non-inferiority of OCs with newer generation progestins on different domains of QOL, in comparison with older compounds, although usage of products containing CPA was significantly associated with more improvement in total QOL of PCOS patients, compared to those containing LNG after 6-month of treatment.

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)

oral contraceptive (OC)

quality of life (QOL)

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), the most common endocrinopathy in females, is characterized by hyperandrogenism, oligo-anovulation, and polycystic ovaries leading to hirsutism, acne, hair loss, menstrual irregularity, and infertility [1]. This syndrome is also associated with an increased risk of metabolic disturbances, including obesity, hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia, which predispose women to cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus [2].

In addition to endocrine and metabolic disorders, women with PCOS frequently experience several psychological comorbidities, such as depression, anxiety, sexual dysfunction, and social problems [3–5], which can negatively influence their feminine identity and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) [4, 6]. Indeed, the quality of life (QOL) of women with PCOS is mainly affected by the clinical features of this syndrome and also depressive symptoms, anxiety, poor body image and low self-esteem [7].

There are several options for PCOS treatment, which individualize depending on clinical manifestations, needs, and preferences of each patient. The goals of all therapies are to improve biochemical, and clinical outcomes of PCOS as well as the QOL. It is well-documented that oral contraceptives (OCs) as first-line treatment can decrease menstrual irregularity and hyperandrogenism, and leads to improvements in specific domains of QOL in patients with PCOS [6].

Despite numerous studies on the association between PCOS and QOL [6–10], a limited number of studies have evaluated the effects of OCs on the QOL of PCOS patients [11–14]. Besides, to the best our knowledge, there is no study comparing the effectiveness of these pharmacological treatments on the QOL of patients based on their progestin component. Hence, the aim of this crossover randomized controlled trial was to compare the effects of using OCs containing levonorgestrel (LNG) and those containing desogestrel (DSG), cyproterone acetate (CPA) or drospirenone (DRSP) on the QOL of patients with PCOS, over a period of 6 months.

This study is a crossover randomized controlled 6-arm trial designed based on the requirements of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) [15] and initiated in February 2016. This clinical trial is registered in the Iran Registry of Clinical Trials (Registration number: IRCT201702071281N2). Ethics approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. (Ethics Code: IR.SBMU.ENDOCRINE.REC.1396.425). We obtained written informed consent from all eligible participants, following study content being clearly explained to the subjects by the trial assistant; all research tools, including questionnaires, were completely anonymous.

Patients with PCOS diagnosed based on the Androgen Excess Society (AES) criteria (age 18–45 years) were recruited at the endocrine out-patients clinic of the Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences (RIES) of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Pregnant women or those of willingness for pregnancy, patients with contraindications of OC therapy, and those using medications related to PCOS such as hormonal, insulin sensitizers, or antiandrogens drugs within the previous 3 months were excluded from the study.

All participants were alternatively treated for two 6-month treatment periods with OCs. This study had 6 treatment arms with different sequences. All participants were randomly assigned to one of the following treatment groups: Group 1: First treated with Ethinyl estradiol (EE) 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg and then received the second treatment with OCs containing EE 30 µg + DSG 150 µg. Group 2: First treated with EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg and then received the second treatment with OCs containing EE 35 µg + CPA 2 mg. Group 3: First treated with OCs containing (EE) 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg and then received the second treatment with OCs containing EE 30 µg + DRSP 3 mg. Group 4: First treated with EE 30 µg + DSG 150 µg and then received the second treatment as EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg. Group 5: First treated with EE 35 µg + CPA 2 mg and then received the second treatment with EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg. Group 6: First treated with EE 30 µg + DRSP 3 mg and then received the second treatment with EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg.

Accordingly, all participants received EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg as the standard treatment. A washout period of 6–8 weeks was considered between the two treatment periods for the elimination of carry-over effects of treatment. Interventions were performed by a trained midwife with the assistance of another individual, who was aware of the type of intervention. We applied a blocking or stratification random allocation (block size = 6), using a computer-based random number generator to assign participants to treatment groups. The randomization sequence was prepared before the trial, initiated by an independent statistician. For those patients meeting inclusion criteria and having given written informed consent, the next randomization sequence was assigned by the research assistant according to the schedule.

For each participant, outcome measures, including clinical, biochemical (androgenic and metabolic), and anthropometric parameters and QOL were collected at 6 time points, i.e. first baseline, at the end of third and sixth months of the first treatment period, after the washout period (second baseline), and at the end of the third and sixth months of the second treatment period, respectively. Clinical assessments of participants were conducted by only one person who was blinded to groups to minimize any assessor effects. Biochemical measurements were performed by an expert laboratory technician under the supervision of a specialist in laboratory sciences. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) report, QOL is defined as “the individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals” [16]. In this study, we assessed QOL using a specific and valid health-related quality of life questionnaire for PCOS, developed by Iran, which is consisted of 43 items in six domains, including psychosocial–emotional, self-image, fertility, sexual function, hirsutism, and obesity– menstrual disorders. Items were scored based on the 5‐point Likert scale (always, often, sometimes, rarely, never) [17]. Details of the study protocol, flow diagram of study, and outcome measures have been published previously [18, 19].

Statistical analysis

In this study, we applied the non-inferiority assumption and intention-to-treat the principle to compare the intervention treatments. EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg was considered as a reference group.

Continuous and categorical variables at the baseline are reported as median (IQR) and percentage, respectively. Effect of oral contraceptives containing EE + DSG, EE + CPA, and EE + DRSP was compared to EE + LNG for the outcomes of interests using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) which are appropriate for longitudinal data. Regression models were adjusted for period, sequence and baseline measure. Confidence intervals (CIs) for effect sizes were estimated through the robust variance estimators obtained on the assumption that the correlation structure was exchangeable. Carryover effect for this 2⋅2 (two sequence-two period) cross over analysis were tested via the first-order-interaction effect of period and treatment, and in case of significant results, the independent working correlation structure was considered to omit intra subject variability [20–22]. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software (version 13; STATA, INC., College Station, TX, USA). A significant level was considered < 0.05.

Sample Size

To show that the OCs containing LNG are clinically as effective as those containing antiandrogenic progestins including DSG, CPA, and DRSP, CPA, we used a noninferiority hypothesis, where µT is the mean of the test drug, µS is the mean of standard therapy, and δ is a difference of clinical importance.

By rejecting the null hypothesis, we conclude that the difference between the test drug and the standard therapy is less than a clinically meaningful difference (ie, δ), and therefore the test drug is as effective as the standard therapy [23].

We considered 80% power, 0.05 type I error, and ϴ=0.52, where ϴ is defined as the difference of mean of test drug and standard therapy minus difference of clinical importance divided by standard division. Sample size was calculated from the table introduced by sample size calculations in clinical research [24]. We estimated 25 samples were needed for each group, with 150 total samples needed.

Of 200 participants recruited in this study, data of a total of 88 women with PCOS were analyzed (Group 1: n = 24; Group 2: n = 7 Group 3: n = 24; Group 4: n = 13; Group 5: n = 25 and group 6: n = 16). Study flow diagram has been published previously [19]. Table 1 presents the baseline characteristics of patients with PCOS based on the treatment groups. Figures 1A-G depict the total and domains scores of QOL for study groups at baseline; there were no significant differences between treatment groups at baseline variables. No significant differences were observed between study groups at baselines for anthropometric and clinical outcomes; its results have been published already [19].

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients with PCOS based on the treatment groups.
Baseline characteristics		EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg	EE 30 µg + DSG 150 µg	EE 35 µg + CPA 2 mg	EE 30 µg + DRSP 3 mg	Total
Age, years		28 (24–33)	28 (23–34)	30 (27–36)	32 (24–37)	29 (25–34)
BMI, kg/m2		25 (23–27)	24 (21–29)	25 (23–28)	26 (22–30)	25 (22–28)
Education
	Diploma and less	0 (0)	2 (7.7)	1 (5.0)	2 (12.5)	5 (5.7)
	Upper diploma	26 (100)	24 (92.3)	19 (95.0)	14 (87.5)	83 (94.3)
Marital status
	Never married	14 (53.8)	14 (53.8)	8 (40.0)	10 (62.5)	46 (52.3)
	Ever married	12 (46.2)	12 (46.2)	12 (60.0)	6 (37.5)	42 (47.7)
Parity
	Nulliparous	3 (25.0)	4 (33.3)	0 (0)	4 (57.1)	11 (26.2)
	Primiparous	6 (50.0)	4 (33.3)	7 (63.6)	2 (28.6)	19 (45.2)
	Multiparous	3 (25.0)	4 (33.3)	4 (36.4)	1 (14.3)	12 (28.6)
Job
	Student	6 (23.1)	5 (19.2)	3 (15.0)	2 (12.5)	16 (18.2)
	Employed	11 (42.3)	10 (38.5)	8 (40.0)	3 (18.8)	32 (36.4)
	Housewife	9 (34.6)	11 (42.3)	9 (45.0)	11 (68.8)	40 (45.5)
Infertility status
	yes	3 (11.5)	3 (11.5)	2 (10.0)	1 (6.3)	9 (10.2)
	no	23 (88.5)	23 (88.5)	18 (90.0)	15 (93.8)	79 (89.8)
Duration of infertility, years		8 (4–36)	5 (4–18)	24 (24–24)	36 (36–36)	18 (5–24)
Menstrual disorder
	yes	24 (92.3)	26 (100)	20 (100)	16 (100)	86 (97.7)
	no	2 (7.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (2.3)
Duration of Menstrual disorder, months		120 (60–162)	102 (36–156)	147 (72–204)	157 (42–180)	120 (48–180)
Duration of PCOS diagnosis, months		36 (22–96)	36 (1–54)	30 (12–60)	60 (24–108)	36 (12–87)
FSH		4 (4–5)	5 (4–6)	5 (4–6)	4 (4–5)	5 (4–6)
LH		4 (2–8)	4 (3–6)	4 (3–6)	3 (2–4)	4 (3–6)
Total testosterone, ng/ml		1 (0–1)	1 (1–1)	1 (1–1)	0 (0–1)	1 (0–1)
SHBG (nmo/l)		32 (16–48)	53 (34–95)	53 (34–95)	50 (26–68)	44 (27–67)
FAI		6 (3–10)	4 (2–8)	4 (2–8)	4 (1–6)	4 (2–8)
DHEAS		183 (111–229)	138 (94–216)	138 (94–216)	138 (73–178)	153 (94–206)
FBS, mg/dL		86 (76–91)	86 (78–92)	86 (78–92)	89 (80–98)	86 (78–93)
Fasting Insulin		8 (6–14)	7 (6–13)	7 (6–13)	9 (6–15)	9 (6–13)
HOMA-IR		2 (1–3)	1 (1–3)	1 (1–3)	2 (1–3)	2 (1–3)
TG, mg/dL		76 (60–104)	95 (60–142)	95 (60–142)	89 (80–120)	82 (69–122)
TC, mg/dL		176 (141–199)	170 (147–202)	170 (147–202)	162 (147–174)	169 (146–196)
LDL, mg/dL		99 (77–114)	93 (83–115)	93 (83–115)	91 (80–100)	92 (78–112)
HDL, mg/dL		48 (41–52)	47 (39–56)	47 (39–56)	43 (38–50)	46 (39–52)
Values are presented as number (%) and median (25–75 interquartile range) for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Abbreviation:

Regression models via GEE adjusted for baseline values showed that use of OCs containing DSG, CPA, and DRSP for 3 months was not associated with a significant difference in the total scores of QOL compared to those OCs containing LNG, whereas, after 6 months of treatment, patients treated with OCs containing CPA had more decrease in their total scores of QOL, in comparison to OCs containing LNG (P < 0.042) (Tables 2–3, Figs. 1A-G).

Table 2

Estimation of treatment, period, sequence and carryover effects through Generalized Estimating Equation Model (GEE) for quality of life (QOL) at 3 months of therapy.
Treatment ^&		Psychosocial–emotional domain	Self-image domain	Fertility domain	Sexual Function domain	Hirsutism domain	Obesity–Menstrual disorders domain	Total QOL
Treatment ^&		β ^&(95% CI) P-value	β ^& (95% CI) P-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value
EE 30 µg + DSG 150 µg		0.39 (-12.71, 13.48) 0.954	0.62 (-0.60, 1.83) 0.319	-3.12 (-15.17, 8.94) 0.612	10.09 (-8.85, 29.04) 0.296	-5.20 (-5.14, -5.14) 0.324	5.96 (-5.16, 17.10) 0.294	20.65 (-16.74, 58.02) 0.279
EE 35 µg + CPA 2 mg		1.66 (-7.71, 11.03) 0.729	0.21 (-1.07, 1.48) 0.749	-0.94 (-9.67, 7.79) 0.833	10.44 (-3.29, 24.17) 0.136	5.56 (-1.82, 12.93) 0.140	5.17 (-2.78, 13.12) 0.203	20.72 (-5.93, 47.38) 0.128
EE 30 µg + DRSP 3 mg		-1.95 (-7.66, 3.77) 0.504	-0.44 (-1.82, 0.94) 0.534	-2.35 (-7.42, 2.73) 0.365	3.23 ( -4.84, 11.3) 0.433	2.32 (-2.10, 6.75) 0.304	2.28 (-2.53, 7.09) 0.353	3.18 (-12.63, 18.99) 0.694
EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg		Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Sequence
	EE/LNG as Second Treatment	1.47 (-2.21, 5.15) 0.433	0.62 (-0.33, 1.56) 0.203	1.02 (-3.02, 5.07) 0.620	-1.28 ( -7.18, 4.63)	-0.95 (4.39, 2.50) 0.590	0.50 (-2.82, 3.82) 0.767	5.04 (-13.63, 23.70) 0.597
	EE/LNG as First Treatment	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Period
	Second Six Month	-1.90 (-8.29, 4.50) 0.560	0.10 (-0.85, 1.04) 0.844	-1.07 (-7.07, 4.93) 0.727	5.99 ( -3.45, 15.42) 0.214	2.67 (-2.34, 7.68) 0.297	2.45 (-2.96, 7.87) 0.374	6.55 (-11.53, 24.63)
	First Six Month	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Carry over effect		0.05 (-2.97, 3.07) 0.976	0.34(0.06, 0.45) 0.039*	0.67 (-2.06, 3.40) 0.629	-2.15 ( -6.43, 2.14) 0.326	-1.13 (-3.52, 1.26) 0.353	-1.33 ( -3.90, 1.24) 0.310	-4.33 (-12.95, 4.28)
^& Beta regression coefficient, (95% CI) and P-value showed mean difference estimated via GEE adjusted by baseline values with linear link function and exchangeable working correlation matrix.
^$ Reference group for treatment effect: (EE + LNG), Sequence: the one (EE + LNG) treated as first treatment
^$$ working correlation considered independent in case of significant carryover effect
Φ Pairwise comparisons between EE/DSG and EE/CPA significant level < 0.05
Ψ Pairwise comparisons between EE/DSG and EE/DRSP significant level < 0.05
Pairwise comparisons between EE/CPA and EE/DRSP significant level < 0.05

Table 3

Estimation of treatment, period, sequence and carryover effects through Generalized Estimating Equation Model (GEE) for quality of life (QOL) at 6 months of therapy.
Treatment ^&		Psychosocial–emotional domain	Self-image domain	Fertility domain	Sexual Function domain	Hirsutism domain	Obesity–Menstrual disorders domain	Total QOL
Treatment ^&		β ^&(95% CI) P-value	β ^& (95% CI) P-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value	β ^& (95% CI) p-value
EE 30 µg + DSG 150 µg		9.20 (-2.48, 20.89) 0.123	4.90 (-1.03, 10.83) 0.105	-2.13 (-13.65, 9.39) 0.717	3.73 (-10.61, 18.07) 0.610	4.57 (-4.25, 13.39) 0.310	10.13 (-1.03, 21.28) 0.075	33.72 (-1.19, 68.64)
EE 35 µg + CPA 2 mg		6.43 (-1.91, 14.77) 0.131	3.10 (-1.13, 7.34) 0.151	0.50 (-7.86, 8.85) 0.908	2.09 (-8.31, 12.49) 0.694	4.28 (-2.01, 10.57) 0.182	7.36 (-0.61, 15.32) 0.070	25.88 (0.99, 50.77) 0.042 ^*
EE 30 µg + DRSP 3 mg		3.26 (-1.75, 8.26) 0.203	2.46 (-0.09, 5.01) 0.058	-0.07 (-4.87, 4.73) 0.976	0.37 (-5.56, 6.30) 0.903	1.65 ( -2.10, 5.41) 0.389	3.82 (-0.98, 8.62) 0.119	11.37 (-3.39, 26.12) 0.131
EE 30 µg + LNG 0.15 mg		Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Sequence
	EE/LNG as Second Treatment	-3.03 (-6.82, 0.75) 0.116	-1.40 (-3.26, 0.46) 0.140	-0.11 (-4.06, 3.84) 0.957	0.47 (-4.88, 5.83) 0.863	-1.03 (-4.28, 2.22) 0.536	-2.35 (-5.84, 1.15) 0.188	-4.45 (-23.27, 14.37) 0.643
	EE/LNG as First Treatment	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Period
	Second Six Month	2.81 (-2.85, 8.48) 0.331	2.02 (-0.86, 4.90) 0.170	0.08 (-5.67, 5.83) 0.978	1.26 (-5.90, 8.41) 0.731	2.21 (-2.06, 6.48) 0.310	3.91 (-1.51, 9.33) 0.157	12.16 (-4.72, 29.04) 0.158
	First Six Month	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Carry over effect		-1.97 (-4.67, 0.73) 0.152	-1.12 (-2.49, 0.25) 0.110	0.11 (-2.49, 2.72) 0.932	-0.80 (-4.04, 2.44) 0.628	-1.08 (-3.12, 0.95) 0.297	-2.14 (-4.71, 0.44) 0.104	-7.46 (-15.51, 0.59) 0.069
^& Beta regression coefficient, (95% CI) and P-value showed mean difference estimated via GEE adjusted by baseline values with linear link function and exchangeable working correlation matrix.
^$ Reference group for treatment effect: (EE + LNG), Sequence: the one (EE + LNG) treated as first treatment
^$$ working correlation considered independent in case of significant carryover effect

Analysis of domains of QOL showed no significant differences in none of the domains, including Psychosocial–emotional, self-image, fertility, sexual function, hirsutism, and obesity-menstrual disorders after 3–6 months of treatment with DSG, CPA, or DRSP, compared to LNG (Tables 2–3, Figs. 1A-B).

The sequence effect was not significant in any of the analyses at 3 and 6 months of treatment, indicating that when EE/LNG was considered as the second treatment, QOL did not change, compared to when this compound is the first treatment. We also found no significant period effects for the outcomes at the end of 3 and 6 months of treatment, indicating that these outcomes did not significantly change in the second sixth month of treatment, compared to the first sixth months, regardless of the type of treatment. The carry-over effect was not significant for most outcomes assessed, except for self-image domain at the end of 3 months of therapy (Tables 2–3).

This crossover study was carried out to assess the QOL of PCOS patients treated with oral contraceptives based on their progestin component. We found that, in general, OCs with newer progestin such as DSG, CPA, and DRSP had no superiority on increasing scores of QOL different domains, in comparison with older compounds, although usage of products containing CPA was significantly associated with more improvement in total QOL of PCOS patients, compared to those containing LNG after 6th month of treatment.

Quality of life in women with PCOS is multifactorial and has been attributed to clinical, hormonal features, cardio-metabolic abnormalities, in particular obesity, delayed diagnosis, fear about future health, and inadequate information about this syndrome [25]. According to the recent International Evidence-based Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of PCOS, all women with PCOS should be screened and monitored for QOL status to prevent, identify, and manage their health concerns. While these guidelines recommended that improving the QOL of the patients should consider as an important goal of treatment [10, 26, 27], the effect of OCs on psychological health and QOL of PCOS has been investigated only in a limited number of previous studies [11–14]. Available data showed that treatment with OC was associated with a significant improvement in the QOL in a 16-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) [12], a 12-month RCT [11], and a 6-month observational trial [13]. However, it should be kept in mind that none of these studies have been assessed the impact of OCs on the QOL based on their progestin component. Chung et al. [14] during a randomized crossover study showed that the use of medroxyprogesterone acetate and OCs containing CPA for 4 months was not associated with any significant difference in the QOL domains compared to baseline. They suggested that although OCs containing CPA may be a better option for reducing the severity of hyperandrogenism symptoms, there was no difference between these two treatments on the QOL [14]; however, this trial had a study population of adolescents and assessed QOL by SF 36 questionnaire, a nonspecific instrument for PCOS patients. Besides, this study used Rotterdam criteria for the diagnosis of PCOS; therefore study population could have mild phenotypes of disease. A review of the literature suggests that OCs containing an androgenic progestin such as CPA can reduce not only clinical findings of hyperandrogenism but also the negative impact of these symptoms on the QOL and mental health [28]. In accordance with previous evidence, our results showed that OCs containing DSG, CPA, and DRSP for 3 months had no advantage on the total scores of QOL compared to those OCs containing LNG, whereas at the end of follow-up (6th month of treatment), patients treated with OCs containing CPA had more improvements in their total scores of QOL, in comparison to OCs containing LNG.

The effects of OCs are attributed to both their estrogenic and progesterone components; Ethinyl estradiol (E2), contained in the pill increases the SHBG level, resulting in the decrease of free androgen levels. Antiandrogenic progestins can block peripheral androgen receptors at target organs, and the reduction of ovarian androgen production. Although all OCs can increase the QOL through the suppression of gonadotropins that can lead to an improvement in clinical manifestations women with PCOS, there is evidence demonstrating that contraceptives with anti-androgen progestins have certain mechanisms, in addition to the main mechanisms to improve HA [29, 30]. CPA is progestogen known with antiandrogenic properties, which is still commonly prescribed in some countries as a medical treatment, especially for PCOS patients [28]. A recent meta-analysis comparing the effects of OCs with newer progestin showed that although all OCs studies have similar effects on the hormonal profiles of PCOS patients, products containing CPA had more effective to control hyperandrogenism findings of PCOS, findings suggesting positive effects of these antiandrogenic products on QOL of patients [31]. In addition, previous findings of our crossover study revealed the same effects of OCs on clinical findings of hyperandrogenism (HA), whereas products containing LNG were less effective [19].

Previous studies have been suggested that the management of PCOS can improve both physical and psycho-emotional aspects of QOL [9, 11, 12]. To assess the effects of OCs on QOL domains, we used a specific questionnaire with a multi-dimensional concept, which was developed for examining the impact of PCOS or its treatment on psychosocial–emotional, self-image, fertility, sexual function, hirsutism, and obesity-menstrual disorders.

Similar to other chronic diseases, PCOS is associated with an important psychological burden throughout the life of women [7]. Clinical manifestations of androgens excess may influence the feminine identity reflecting on the psycho-emotional status of women, leading to impaired QOL [7]. One cross-sectional study showed a higher prevalence of depression among PCOS patients. They observed that PCOS was managed in only 74.6% of these patients with depression. In addition, poor QOL was observed in 87.8% of these patients, whereas only 9.2% of PCOS patients who received treatment had poor QOL [6], findings suggesting the need for managing psychological disorders in women with PCOS. According to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American College of Endocrinology, and the Androgen Excess and PCOS Society recommendations for evaluation and treatment of PCOS patients, all women with PCOS should be screened for anxiety and depressive disorders during the initial examination and its use at further stages of treatment and after it [32]. One large prospective study evaluated the effect of using OCs for 6 months on emotional distress, anxiety, and depression in PCOS patients and showed that the level of depression remained unchanged [13], whereas one RCT showed significant improvements in the mental domain of QOL after 12 months of OC therapy with and without metformin treatment [11]. However, these two studies have been assessed the effects of OCs, regardless of progestin type. A randomized crossover study showed no significant effects of medroxyprogesterone acetate and OCs containing CPA for 4 months on the emotional and mental health of adolescent girls with PCOS compared to their baseline status; this study also showed no difference between these two treatments on psycho-emotional aspects of QOL [14].

Infertility is one of the most common issues among patients with PCOS. Some studies reported a significantly higher rate of depression PCOS patients with infertility compared with women with PCOS without infertility [8, 33]. We found that the use of OCs containing DSG, CPA, and DRSP was associated with more decrease in the scores of the fertility domain, compared to those with LNG, finding which was non-significant. However, it should be kept in mind that, in Iran, OCs containing LNG commonly prescribe as a contraception method, whereas products containing newer progestins were more well-known as a treatment for hyperandrogenism symptoms. Hence, it seems that patients treated with newer products were more concerned about the adverse effects of these drugs on their reproduction.

There are complexities in the sexual aspect and its related factors in patients with PCOS. Although the negative impact of clinical features of hyperandrogenism on sexual function is well-documented, the role of androgens on sexual function is still debated [7]. On the other hand, there is evidence demonstrating a significant positive relationship between androgen levels and the sexual domain of QoL in PCOS patients [34]. While targeted interventions may help to improve their quality of life through improving sexual relationships, it is unknown whether the treatment of PCOS patients with hyperandrogenism can improve their sexual relationships [7]. In addition, there is no evidence demonstrating the superiority of new generation products in decreasing sexual dysfunction in PCOS patients. This study showed that compared to patients treated with OCs containing LNG, those treated with OCs containing newer progestin (DSG, CPA, and DRSP) had similar effects on sexual function of patients, finding suggesting

Hirsutism is another common problem with a considerable impact on the QOL. Previous studies suggest the role of hirsutism in developing anxiety and mood disorders [9]. One cross-sectional showed that 87% of PCOS patients with hirsutism had poor QOL; they found that those patients with hirsutism had lower QOL than non-hirsute patients. In this study, most patients had not been used any treatment for hirsutism [6]. Two studies showed a significant improvement of the hirsutism aspect after 6 months [13] and 12 months [11] of OC therapy; however, these studies did not compare different OCs regarding their progestin component. Although it seems reasonable that compounds with an anti-androgenic component can enhance the QOL by more improvement of hirsutism, our study showed the non-inferiority of these OCs compared to the older products on this domain of QOL.

While there is a big controversy regarding the effects of oral contraceptives on adiposity indices, it is well documented that all oral contraceptives, regardless of their progestin type, can improve menstrual regularity, mainly through suppress hypothalamus pituitary gonadal [35] and lead to increased QOL [13]. This study showed similar effects on OCs on the physical domain of QOL (obesity-menstrual disorders). Sidra et al. [6] showed that obese patients with PCOS had lower QOL scores. On the other hand, weight loss interventions can associate with an improvement in QOL these patients, although mostly these interventions are unsuccessful, mainly due to the apparent inability of patients with PCOS to lose weight [6]. Altinok et al. [11] observed significant improvements in body mass index (BMI) domain of QOL after medical treatment with metformin, but not with OC therapy, indicating that lifestyle interventions may be a better therapeutic option in weight loss compared to hormonal agents. Cinar et al. reported an improvement of menstrual regularity aspect of QOL after 6 months of using OCs [13]. In agreement with literature, we found that there was any significant difference in menstrual regularity based on OC type, indicating that all OCs can be effective for improving menstrual disorders.

In the crossover study, a washout period of 6 to 8 weeks was considered between two periods of treatment to eliminate carryover effects. Since the treatment effects could be influenced by the order in which treatments may be received; hence this study was designed with 6 treatment arms based on the different treatment sequences. We did not significantly observe significant sequence and carryover effects for almost all outcomes, demonstrating that washout duration was sufficient. As expected, the most common side effects of OCs were headache, dizziness, nausea, and spotting; these complaints declined at the end of the 6th month of treatment.

The strengths of this study include its crossover design, long duration of follow-up, comparing OCs based on their progestin component, and using specific health-related QOL for PCOS patients. This study also has several limitations that should be considered. As most crossover studies, and despite all of our approaches, there was a more loss to follow-up than initially expected; however, it should be kept in mind that patients left the study mostly because of unwillingness to continue treatment for non-medical reasons and they had no difference in their baseline characteristics, such as age and BMI. Although the loss to follow-ups extremely reduced the sample size, each study group had 7 or more participants; recent guidelines for calculating sample size in cross-over trials recommended having more than at least 5 participants in each study group [36]. GEE analysis can also partially overcome missing data [37]. It should be also considered that the study population was diagnosed based on the AES criteria, which detect sever PCOS phenotypes; hence, our results may be not generalizable for mild phenotypes diagnosed using Rotterdam criteria.

This crossover study demonstrated non-inferiority of OCs with newer generation progestins such as DSG, CPA, and DRSP on different domains of QOL, in comparison with older compounds, although usage of products containing CPA was significantly associated with more improvement in total QOL of PCOS patients, compared to those containing LNG after 6th month of use.

PCOS: Polycystic ovary syndrome; QOL: quality of life; OCs: oral contraceptives; LNG: levonorgestrel; DSG: desogestrel; CPA: cyproterone acetate; DRSP: drospirenone; CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; AES: Androgen Excess Society; RIES: Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences; EE: Ethinyl estradiol; WHO: World Health Organization; GEE: Generalized estimating equations; CI: Confidence intervals; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; BMI: Body mass index.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants for their cooperation in the study.

Authors’ contributions

MA was involved in the study conception and design and data collection, carried out the sample analysis and interpretation of data, and manuscript drafting. FRT was involved in the study conception and design and carried out the analysis and interpretation of data, managed the literature search, and manuscript drafting. FN contributed in the study conception and design, carried out the analysis and interpretation of data, drafted the manuscript, and wrote critical revisions. RBY contributed in statistical analyses and randomization design. DK contributed in the study design and analysis and manuscript drafting. MT contributed to interpreting laboratory tests. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

Data is Available after publication if requested, via email to corresponding author.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. (Ethics Code: IR.SBMU.ENDOCRINE.REC.1396.425). We obtained written informed consent from all eligible participants, following study content being clearly explained to the subjects by the trial assistant; all research tools, including questionnaires, were completely anonymous.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Fauser B, Tarlatzis B, Rebar R, Legro R, Balen A, Lobo R, Carmina H, Chang R, Yildiz B, Laven J: Consensus on womens health aspects of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Human Reproduction 2012, 27:14-24.
Sirmans SM, Pate KA: Epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Clinical epidemiology 2014, 6:1.
Berni TR, Morgan CL, Berni ER, Rees DA: Polycystic ovary syndrome is associated with adverse mental health and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2018, 103:2116-2125.
Cesta CE, Månsson M, Palm C, Lichtenstein P, Iliadou AN, Landén M: Polycystic ovary syndrome and psychiatric disorders: co-morbidity and heritability in a nationwide Swedish cohort. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2016, 73:196-203.
Diamond MP, Legro RS, Coutifaris C, Alvero R, Robinson RD, Casson PA, Christman GM, Huang H, Hansen KR, Baker V: Sexual function in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome and unexplained infertility. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2017, 217:191. e191-191. e119.
Sidra S, Tariq MH, Farrukh MJ, Mohsin M: Evaluation of clinical manifestations, health risks, and quality of life among women with polycystic ovary syndrome. PloS one 2019, 14.
Castelo-Branco C, Naumova I: Quality of life and sexual function in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a comprehensive review. Gynecological Endocrinology 2019:1-8.
Angin P, Yoldemir T, Atasayan K: Quality of life among infertile PCOS patients. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2019, 300:461-467.
Borghi L, Leone D, Vegni E, Galiano V, Lepadatu C, Sulpizio P, Garzia E: Psychological distress, anger and quality of life in polycystic ovary syndrome: associations with biochemical, phenotypical andsocio-demographic factors. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology 2018, 39:128-137.
Dokras A, Stener-Victorin E, Yildiz BO, Li R, Ottey S, Shah D, Epperson N, Teede H: Androgen Excess-Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Society: position statement on depression, anxiety, quality of life, and eating disorders in polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertility and sterility 2018, 109:888-899.
Altinok ML, Ravn P, Andersen M, Glintborg D: Effect of 12-month treatment with metformin and/or oral contraceptives on health-related quality of life in polycystic ovary syndrome. Gynecological Endocrinology 2018, 34:859-863.
Dokras A, Sarwer DB, Allison KC, Milman L, Kris-Etherton PM, Kunselman AR, Stetter CM, Williams NI, Gnatuk CL, Estes SJ: Weight loss and lowering androgens predict improvements in health-related quality of life in women with PCOS. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2016, 101:2966-2974.
Cinar N, Harmanci A, Demir B, Yildiz BO: Effect of an oral contraceptive on emotional distress, anxiety and depression of women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a prospective study. Human reproduction 2012, 27:1840-1845.
Chung JP, Yiu AK, Chung TK, Chan SS: A randomized crossover study of medroxyprogesterone acetate and Diane-35 in adolescent girls with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology 2014, 27:166-171.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC medicine 2010, 8:18.
Fleck M, Chachamovich E, Trentini CM: WHOQOL-OLD Project: method and focus group results in Brazil. Revista de Saúde Pública 2003, 37:793-799.
Nasiri-Amiri F, Tehrani FR, Simbar M, Montazeri A, Mohammadpour RA: The polycystic ovary syndrome health-related quality-of-life questionnaire: Confirmatory factor analysis. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism 2018, 16.
Amiri M, Nahidi F, Khalili D, Bidhendi-Yarandi R, Tehrani FR: Comparing the effects of oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel with products containing antiandrogenic progestins on clinical, hormonal, and metabolic parameters and quality of life in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol. JMIR research protocols 2017, 6:e191.
Amiri M, Nahidi F, Bidhendi-Yarandi R, Khalili D, Tohidi M, Ramezani Tehrani F: A comparison of the effects of oral contraceptives on the clinical and biochemical manifestations of polycystic ovary syndrome: a crossover randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2020.
Diggle P, Diggle PJ, Heagerty P, Heagerty PJ, Liang K-Y, Zeger S: Analysis of longitudinal data. Oxford University Press; 2002.
Chow S-C, Liu J-P: Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. CRC press; 1999.
Jones B, Kenward MG: Design and analysis of cross-over trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2014.
Blackwelder WC: “Proving the null hypothesis” in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials 1982, 3:345-353.
O'Brien C: Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research, by Shein‐Chung Chow, Jun Shao, Hansheng Wang. International Statistical Review 2008, 76:301-302.
Kazemi M, McBreairty LE, Zello GA, Pierson RA, Gordon JJ, Serrao SB, Chilibeck PD, Chizen DR: A pulse-based diet and the Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes diet in combination with health counseling and exercise improve health-related quality of life in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology 2019:1-10.
Teede HJ, Misso ML, Costello MF, Dokras A, Laven J, Moran L, Piltonen T, Norman RJ: Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Human Reproduction 2018, 33:1602-1618.
Garvey WT, Mechanick JI, Brett EM, Garber AJ, Hurley DL, Jastreboff AM, Nadolsky K, Pessah-Pollack R, Plodkowski R, Guidelines RotAAOCP: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology comprehensive clinical practice guidelines for medical care of patients with obesity. Endocrine Practice 2016, 22:1-203.
Ruan X, Kubba A, Aguilar A, Mueck A: Use of cyproterone acetate/ethinylestradiol in polycystic ovary syndrome: rationale and practical aspects. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 2017, 22:183-190.
Guido M, Romualdi D, Giuliani M, Suriano R, Selvaggi L, Apa R, Lanzone A: Drospirenone for the treatment of hirsute women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a clinical, endocrinological, metabolic pilot study. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2004, 89:2817-2823.
Bhattacharya SM, Jha A: Comparative study of the therapeutic effects of oral contraceptive pills containing desogestrel, cyproterone acetate, and drospirenone in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertility and sterility 2012, 98:1053-1059.
Amiri M, Kabir A, Nahidi F, Shekofteh M, Ramezani Tehrani F: Effects of combined oral contraceptives on the clinical and biochemical parameters of hyperandrogenism in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 2018, 23:64-77.
Goodman NF, Cobin RH, Futterweit W, Glueck JS, Legro RS, Carmina E: 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. Endocrine Practice 2015, 21:1291-1300.
Shi X, Zhang L, Fu S, Li N: Co-involvement of psychological and neurological abnormalities in infertility with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2011, 284:773-778.
Amiri M, Bidhendi Yarandi R, Nahidi F, Tohidi M, Ramezani Tehrani F: The relationship between clinical and biochemical characteristics and quality of life in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Clinical endocrinology 2019, 90:129-137.
Amiri M, Tehrani FR, Nahidi F, Kabir A, Azizi F: Comparing the effects of combined oral contraceptives containing progestins with low androgenic and antiandrogenic activities on the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR research protocols 2018, 7:e113.
Siyasinghe N, Sooriyarachchi R: Guidelines for calculating sample size in 2x2 crossover trials: a simulation study. 2011.
Ho WK, Matthews JN, Henderson R, Farewell D, Rodgers LR: Dropouts in the AB/BA crossover design. Statistics in medicine 2012, 31:1675-1687.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 31 Aug, 2020

Read the published version in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes →

Editorial decision: Minor Revision
18 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received at journal
17 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed at journal
31 May, 2020
Review #1 received at journal
16 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
27 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
25 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
25 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
13 Apr, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
12 Apr, 2020
Editor invited by journal
12 Apr, 2020
First submitted to journal
09 Apr, 2020

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Effects of oral contraceptives on the quality of life of women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a crossover randomized controlled trial

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Statistical analysis

Sample Size

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1