Cost-effectiveness analysis of polycystic ovary syndrome management and the risk of gestational diabetes in pregnant women: a decision-tree model

ABSTRACT

Background

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of metformin to reduce the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in pregnant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) from the US health-care payer perspective.

Methods

A decision tree was developed to simulate the progression of PCOS in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 pregnant women diagnosed with PCOS and two scenarios were tested. Normal glucose regulation without developing GDM, average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACER), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the outcome measures assessed through pregnancy. Evidence from randomized clinical trials and other published literature were used to assess disease progression and its associated health-care costs. Sensitivity analyses that varied key model parameters were conducted.

Results

Management of PCOS with metformin was associated with lowest ACER ($669.78 per normal glucose regulation without GDM) as compared to ‘no intervention’ strategy. Metformin use is the most cost-effective strategy to manage PCOS during pregnancy with average cost savings of $7,593,372.97 and an average effect gain of 2271 of normal glucose regulation without GDM among pregnant women with PCOS. Sensitivity analyses determined that the results are robust.

Conclusions

Management of PCOS during pregnancy may be a cost-effective strategy to reduce GDM risk and its associated complications.

KEYWORDS:

• PCOS
• metformin
• GDM
• pregnancy
• cost-effectiveness
• decision tree

Author contributions

EA designed the study, collected and analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.