Study finds 11.9 percent of women with PCOS in Polish network had incretin prescriptions

A retrospective study of 38,263 women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in a Polish private healthcare network found that 11.9 percent had a recorded prescription for a GLP-1 receptor agonist or for tirzepatide, and that the share starting these drugs within a year of diagnosis rose from 0.14 percent in 2018 to 5.97 percent in 2024 ^[1].

The study was published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism and first posted online on June 15, 2026 ^[1]. It used electronic health records from the LUX MED network in Poland covering July 2006 through April 2026. The main analysis looked at women diagnosed with PCOS between 2018 and 2024 and measured whether an incretin-based drug — a GLP-1 receptor agonist or the dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide — was recorded within 365 days of that diagnosis ^[1].

Across the full cohort, 4,557 women (11.9 percent) had a recorded GLP-1 or GIP–GLP-1 prescription and 16,381 (42.8 percent) received metformin ^[1]. Among the incretin users, 75.5 percent also had metformin on their record, but only 11.5 percent had a coded diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, meaning most of the women receiving these drugs were not being treated for diabetes ^[1].

Women who received an incretin drug had a median BMI of 31.2, compared with 26.3 for women who received metformin only and 22.1 for untreated women, and they had a higher burden of other health conditions. The authors report those differences as statistically significant (p < 0.001) ^[1].

Calendar year was strongly tied to starting treatment. In adjusted models, each additional calendar year was associated with an odds ratio of 1.64 (95 percent confidence interval 1.56 to 1.73) for starting an incretin within a year of PCOS diagnosis; the unadjusted figure was 1.52 (95 percent CI 1.44 to 1.59) ^[1]. Both were statistically significant, and the authors say the pattern held after women with diabetes were excluded ^[1].

The authors conclude that incretin use in this PCOS group "increased markedly over time, suggesting expansion beyond classical glycaemic indications toward weight-focused and cardiometabolic management" ^[1]. They call for studies that use dispensing records and that examine persistence, safety and outcomes ^[1].

What the study does not show

A prescription on the record does not establish that the prescription was filled or that the drug was taken, and the study does not report either ^[1]. Results are grouped by drug class; which specific agents were prescribed first in each year appears in a supplementary table, not in the main findings ^[1]. The study reports no doses, side effects, weight change or other results for these women, and the authors state that safety and outcome data are still needed ^[1]. The underlying records are not public and are available only on request from the corresponding author under the network's data-governance rules ^[1]. The paper defines the population by ICD-coded PCOS diagnoses in health records ^[1].

Why it matters for patients

The study shows that in one large health system, incretin drugs are already a routine part of care for many women with PCOS, and that most of those women do not have type 2 diabetes ^[1]. Metformin remained far more common than incretins in this group, and it was the only treatment most women received ^[1].

Two limits matter for anyone reading this from the United States. The data come from a single private network in Poland, so they describe prescribing there, not here; US prescribing patterns in PCOS have not been reported in this study. And the study captured who was prescribed a drug, not what happened afterward. It cannot show whether incretin treatment improved PCOS symptoms such as irregular periods or infertility, or whether it caused harm, because those outcomes were not measured ^[1].

The BMI differences show that prescribing tracked with higher body weight, but an observational study like this cannot establish why any individual patient was offered a given drug. The authors describe their findings as a signal about how prescribing is shifting, not as evidence of benefit ^[1].

What happens next

No new trial or regulatory action was announced alongside the paper ^[1]. The authors' stated next step is research using dispensing, persistence, safety and outcome data, and no timetable for that work has been disclosed ^[1].