4.2 Article

Metabolic syndrome and metabolic risk profile according to polycystic ovary syndrome phenotype

Journal

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue 7, Pages 837-843

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jog.12985

Keywords

metabolic syndrome; phenotype; polycystic ovary syndrome; risk factor; visceral adiposity index

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimIt is unknown which phenotype of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has a greater metabolic risk and how to detect this risk. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the incidence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and metabolic risk profile (MRP) for different phenotypes. MethodsA total of 100 consecutive newly diagnosed PCOS women in a tertiary referral hospital were recruited. Patients were classified into four phenotypes according to the Rotterdam criteria, on the presence of at least two of the three criteria hyperandrogenism (H), oligo/anovulation (O) and PCO appearance (P): phenotype A, H + O + P; phenotype B, H + O; phenotype C, H + P; phenotype D, O + P. Prevalence of MetS and MRP were compared among the four groups. ResultsBased on Natural Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III diagnostic criteria, MetS prevalence was higher in phenotypes A and B (29.6% and 34.5%) compared with the other phenotypes (10.0% and 8.3%; P < 0.001). Although the prevalence of obesity was similar, the number of patients with homeostatic model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) >3.8 was significantly higher in androgenic PCOS phenotypes. After logistic regression analysis, visceral adiposity index (VAI) was the only independent predictor of MetS in PCOS (P = 0.002). VAI was also significantly higher in phenotype B, when compared with the others (P < 0.01). ConclusionPhenotypes A and B had the highest risk of MetS among the four phenotypes, and VAI may be a predictor of metabolic risk in PCOS women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available