355
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

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

Pages 995-999 | Received 28 Jul 2020, Accepted 02 Sep 2020, Published online: 24 Sep 2020
 

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.

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.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 99.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 493.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.