4.6 Article

Need to Introduce the Finding of Obesity or Normal Body Weight in the Current Diagnostic Criteria and in the Classification of PCOS

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12102555

关键词

PCOS; lean PCOS; obese PCOS; PCOS phenotypes; insulin resistance in PCOS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diagnosis of PCOS is based on the Rotterdam guidelines, but the current classification does not include obesity and metabolic changes. This makes it challenging to establish clear strategies for follow-up and treatment of high-risk patients and may hide genetic or environmental differences between PCOS patients. A new classification is suggested which divides each Rotterdam phenotype into obese or lean sub-phenotypes, aiming to improve our understanding and treatment of PCOS.
The diagnosis of PCOS is based on the Rotterdam guidelines: chronic anovulation, hyperandrogenism (biologic or clinical) and polycystic ovaries on ultrasound. Two of these three criteria are sufficient for making diagnosis of PCOS. However, one characteristic that is often associated to PCOS (obesity with severe insulin resistance and metabolic alteration regarding glucose metabolism and lipid pattern) has remained out of the current classification of PCOS. Because of this, patients with different metabolic and cardiovascular risk may be included in the same phenotype, and it makes more difficult to establish clear strategies of follow-up and treatment of the patients with increased risks, and also may hide genetic or environmental differences between PCOS patients. Our recent study has shown that metabolic alterations are linked to the weight and not to the Rotterdam phenotypes. Because of this, we suggest a new classification of PCOS phenotypes that divides each Rotterdam phenotype in obese (ob) or lean (l) sub-phenotype. An improved classification of PCOS may be essential for permitting new progress in our understanding of pathogenesis and treatment of PCOS (or of the different disorders that are part of PCOS).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据