In a paper published in The Lancet on 12th May 2026, and presented at the European Congress of Endocrinology in Prague, it was announced that Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) would be renamed to Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome (PMOS) to reflect its whole-body impact. Nutritional therapist, Ilaria Bilancini shares her thoughts on the recent change.
On the day, and in the days that followed, my feed was flooded with practitioners spreading the news and sharing their uncensored opinions. Here I am collecting my feelings and thoughts on the change, as the news sparked a great deal of conversation on the internet, which I think is incredibly positive.
What Does the New Name Actually Mean?
Before sharing my view, let’s take a moment to look at what PMOS actually stands for.
Polyendocrine - Of or pertaining to multiple endocrine glands. This term recognises that this condition is underpinned by multiple interacting hormonal disturbances: insulin, androgens, and neuroendocrine hormones, rather than being an isolated ovarian disorder.
Metabolic - Acknowledges the inherent metabolic features of the condition, including insulin resistance, increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome. And whilst we are on this point, it is worth being clear: this does not mean the condition revolves around weight. Metabolic dysfunction in PMOS exists across the weight spectrum, and that nuance matters enormously for how patients are treated and how they feel about their diagnosis.
Ovarian - Retains the connection to ovarian dysfunction, including ovulatory disturbances and fertility challenges, which remain defining features of the condition.
The old name, PCOS, reduced the condition to the ovaries. It also carried a fundamental inaccuracy: what is visible on the pelvic ultrasounds of some women with this condition are not cysts, but follicles, follicles whose adequate development is affected and arrested by some or all of the underlying endocrine and metabolic causes.
The new name does a far better job at capturing the true complexity of the condition. As The Lancet paper itself noted, the old terminology contributed to delayed diagnoses, fragmented care, and stigma, while also limiting research funding and policy framing.
What Does This Mean in Practice? The Evidence-to-Practice Gap
We know that new research takes an average of ten years to be reflected in healthcare policy, with some sources even placing that figure closer to seventeen years! This means that, despite the significance of this rename, the translation into updated diagnosis criteria, clinical guidelines, and treatment pathways could take another decade to fully materialise.
PMOS is currently diagnosed according to the Rotterdam criteria, which requires a woman to present with at least two of the following three features:
- Menstrual irregularities: oligo or anovulation, fewer than nine menstrual cycles per year, or a cycle lasting 35 days or more.
- Clinical or biochemical hyperandrogenism: signs of elevated androgens, such as hirsutism and male-pattern hair loss, and/or elevated androgens in bloodwork.
- Polycystic ovaries on ultrasound: 20 or more follicles per ovary, or increased ovarian volume.
According to the WHO, PMOS affects an estimated one in eight women of reproductive age, and up to 70% of those affected worldwide are unaware they have the condition. If the name change is truly to serve those women, then a review of the diagnostic criteria seems not just warranted, but necessary.
When it comes to treatment, women who received a PCOS (PMOS) diagnosis were routinely offered hormonal contraception and told to return when they are ready to try for a baby. For a condition affecting over 170 million women worldwide across their entire lifespan - not just their reproductive years - we can agree this response falls short. Moreover, PMOS, framed as a lifelong endocrine and metabolic condition, demands lifelong care: screening for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular risk, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, mental health support, and more.
What This Could Mean for Women's Health and Fertility
In the naturopathic, holistic, and functional medicine world, practitioners have long been taught to approach what we now call PMOS as the multi-layered, metabolic condition it is. In that sense, the rename validates a framework that integrative practitioners have long worked within. But for the majority of women navigating a conventional healthcare system, this recognition could be genuinely transformative.
My hope is that this will prompt more resources being invested in the condition across all life stages, feeding into the long-underserved area of women's health care and research. If PMOS is understood as a metabolic and endocrine condition, then metabolic interventions become first-line considerations rather than afterthoughts.
For fertility specifically, this shift may be significant. The new framing should support a more targeted approach to restoring ovulation by addressing root causes - managing insulin resistance, supporting androgen balance, reducing systemic inflammation - rather than bypassing the underlying dysfunction with ovarian stimulation alone.
The hope is that this will also translate into better IVF care and outcomes for women with PMOS, who have historically had more variable responses to stimulation protocols. A deeper metabolic understanding of their physiology could inform more personalised protocols (something that, in small steps, the private fertility sector is already increasingly moving toward).
It is worth noting, too, that some practitioners have expressed concerns about the timing of this change and the rise in GLP-1 use. Could GLP-1 medications, originally developed for type 2 diabetes and obesity, be on their way to becoming a more mainstream treatment avenue for PMOS? We are already seeing the first petitions calling for insurance coverage of these medications for the condition. A syndrome newly and formally recognised as metabolic opens a different conversation around coverage than one categorised as primarily gynaecological.
Now, I do not think the primary aim of this name change is commercial gain, especially given the 14-year process it took us to get here, but it would be naive not to acknowledge that pharmaceutical interests and scientific progress sometimes converge, and that it is always worth asking who stands to benefit, and how.
Final Thoughts
This rename is significant. It is long overdue. And it matters, not because a word change fixes anything by itself, but because language shapes perception, and perception shapes policy, funding, research, and care.
About the Author
Ilaria Bilancini graduated from the College of Naturopathic Medicine (CNM) in London in 2022. She has since worked in an integrative fertility clinic—supporting individuals and couples on their journey to parenthood. Her main areas of interest include fertility, women’s health (particularly endometriosis, pelvic pain, and PMOS) as well as gut and skin health.
Her passion for holistic wellbeing began early, inspired by her mother’s blend of traditional remedies and allopathic medicine, and strengthened by her own experience with severe cystic acne in her 20s.