Estimation of the direct health and indirect societal costs of diabetes in the UK using a cost of illness model.

AIMS: The direct cost of diabetes to the UK health system was estimated at around £10 billion in 2012. This analysis updates that estimate using more recent and accurate data sources. METHODS: A pragmatic review of relevant data sources for UK nations was conducted, including population-level data sets and published literature, to generate estimates of costs separately for Type 1, Type 2 and gestational diabetes. A comprehensive cost framework, developed in collaboration with experts, was used to create a population-based cost of illness model. The key driver of the analysis was prevalence of diabetes and its complications. Estimates were made of the excess costs of diagnosis, treatment and diabetes-related complications compared with the general UK population. Estimates of the indirect costs of diabetes focused on productivity losses due to absenteeism and premature mortality. RESULTS: The direct costs of diabetes in 2021/22 for the UK were estimated at £10.7 billion, of which just over 40% related to diagnosis and treatment, with the rest relating to the excess costs of complications. Indirect costs were estimated at £3.3 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes remains a considerable cost burden in the UK, and the majority of those costs are still spent on potentially preventable complications. Although rates of some complications are reducing, prevalence continues to increase and effective approaches to primary and secondary prevention continue to be needed. Improvements in data capture, data quality and reporting, and further research on the human and financial implications of increasing incidence of Type 2 diabetes in younger people are recommended.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin versus insulin in the treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Although there have been many studies on gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treatment, there is still a knowledge gap regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin in the treatment phase. Existing studies have focused on treatment efficacy and drug safety, but relatively little has been explored regarding cost-effectiveness analysis. In particular, no comprehensive study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin for GDM treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to fill this knowledge gap by conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatments for GDM. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin in China. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the roll-back method. The strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥242,938 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The roll-back analysis indicated that insulin was not cost-effective compared to metformin, resulting in increased costs and decreased QALYs, with a negative ICER. These findings suggested that metformin is a cost-effective option than insulin. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis showed that the model was robust. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with insulin, metformin is a cost-effective treatment option for GDM.

Economic Evaluations of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to find evidence of the cost-effectiveness of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening and assess the quality of current economic evaluations, which have shown different conclusions with a variation in screening methods, data sources, outcome indicators, and implementation in diverse organizational contexts. METHODS: Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Health Technology Assessment, database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database databases were searched through June 2019. Studies on economic evaluation reporting both cost and health outcomes of GDM screening programs in English language were selected, and the quality of the studies was assessed using Drummond's checklist. The general characteristics, main assumptions, and results of the economic evaluations were summarized. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 eligible economic evaluations with different screening strategies compared in different settings and perspectives. The selected papers scored 81% (68-97%) on the items in Drummond's checklist on average. In general, a screening program is cost-effective or even dominant over no screening. The one-step screening, with more cases detected, is more likely to be cost-effective than the two-step screening. Universal screening is more likely to be cost-effective than screening targeting the high-risk population. Parameters affecting cost-effectiveness include: diagnosis criteria, epidemiological characteristics of the population, efficacy of screening and treatment, and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies found GDM screening to be cost-effective, though uncertainties remain due to many factors. The quality assessment identified weaknesses in the economic evaluations in terms of integrating existing data, measuring costs and consequences, analyzing perspectives, and adjusting for uncertainties.

Health service use and health system costs associated with diabetes during pregnancy in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the context of the rising rate of diabetes in pregnancy in Australia, this study aims to examine the health service and resource use associated with diabetes during pregnancy. METHODS AND RESULTS: This project utilised a linked administrative dataset containing health and cost data for all mothers who gave birth in Queensland, Australia between 2012 and 2015 (n = 186,789, plus their babies, n = 189,909). The association between maternal characteristics and diabetes status were compared with chi-square analyses. Multiple logistic regression produced the odds ratio of having different outcomes for women who had diabetes compared to women who did not. A two-sample t-test compared the mean number of health services accessed. Generalised linear regression produced the mean costs associated with health service use. Mothers who had diabetes during pregnancy were more likely to have their labour induced at <38 weeks gestation (OR:1.39, 95% CI:1.29-1.50); have a cesarean section (OR: 1.26, 95% CI:1.22-1.31); have a preterm birth (OR:1.24, 95%: 1.18-1.32); have their baby admitted to a Special Care Nursery (OR: 2.34, 95% CI:2.26-2.43) and a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (OR:1.25, 95%CI: 1.14-1.37). On average, mothers with diabetes access health services on more occasions during pregnancy (54.4) compared to mothers without (50.5). Total government expenditure on mothers with diabetes over the first 1000 days of the perinatal journey was significantly higher than in mothers without diabetes ($12,757 and $11,332). CONCLUSION: Overall, mothers that have diabetes in pregnancy require greater health care and resource use than mothers without diabetes in pregnancy.

Are Lifestyle Interventions to Reduce Excessive Gestational Weight Gain Cost Effective? A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lifestyle interventions (such as diet and physical activity) successfully limit excessive gestational weight gain and can reduce some adverse maternal events; however, benefit is variable and cost-effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to review published cost-effectiveness analyses of lifestyle interventions compared with usual care on clinically relevant outcome measures. Five international and six grey-literature databases were searched from 2007 to 2018. Articles were assessed for quality of reporting. Data were extracted from healthcare and societal perspectives. Costs were adapted to the common currencies of Australia and the United Kingdom by adjusting for resource utilization, healthcare purchase price and changes in costs over time. Included studies were economic analyses of lifestyle interventions aiming to limit weight-gain during pregnancy and/or reduce risk of gestational diabetes, for women with a BMI of 25 or greater in pre- or early-pregnancy. RECENT FINDINGS: Of the 538 articles identified, six were retained for review: one modelling study and five studies in which an economic analysis was performed alongside a randomized-controlled trial. Outcome measures included infant birth-weight, fasting glucose, insulin resistance, gestational weight-gain, infant respiratory distress syndrome, perceived health, cost per case of adverse outcome avoided and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Interventions were cost-effective in only one study. Although many studies have investigated the efficacy of lifestyle interventions in pregnancy, few have included cost-effectiveness analyses. Where cost-effectiveness studies were undertaken, results were inconsistent. Secondary meta-analysis, taxonomy and framework research is now required to determine the effective components of lifestyle interventions and to guide future cost-effectiveness analyses.

Impact of maternal income on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in primiparous women.

AIMS: Findings concerning the impact of socio-economic status on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are inconclusive and little is known about the simultaneous impact of income and educational attainment on the risk of GDM. This study aims to assess the impact of maternal prepregnancy income in combination with traditional GDM risk factors on the incidence of GDM in primiparous women. METHODS: This is an observational cohort study including 5962 Finnish women aged ≥ 20 years from the city of Vantaa, Finland, who delivered for the first time between 2009 and 2015, excluding women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus. The Finnish Medical Birth Register, Finnish Tax Administration, Statistics Finland, Social Insurance Institution of Finland and patient healthcare records provided data for the study. We divided the study population according to five maternal income levels and four educational attainment levels. RESULTS: Incidence of GDM decreased with increasing income level in primiparous women (P < 0.001 for linearity, adjusted for smoking, age, BMI and cohabiting status). In an adjusted two-way model, the relationship was significant for both income (P = 0.007) and education (P = 0.039), but there was no interaction between income and education (P = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: There was an inverse relationship between both maternal prepregnancy taxable income and educational attainment, and the risk of GDM in primiparous Finnish women.

Diagnostic Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Review of Current Evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Currently, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) lacks uniformity. Several controversies are still under debate, especially on the method of screening and diagnosis. This review focuses on recent literature and provides current evidence for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. RECENT FINDINGS: Selective screening would miss a significant number of women with GDM. In contrast, universal screening has been shown to be cost-effective, compared with selective screening, and is recommended by many medical societies. For the diagnostic methods for GDM, most observational cohort studies reported that the one-step method is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes and is cost-saving or cost-effective, compared with the two-step method, although these findings should be confirmed in the upcoming randomized controlled trials which compare the performance of one-step and two-step methods. On the other hand, the methods of early screening or diagnosis of GDM are varied, and current evidence does not justify their use during early pregnancy. In conclusion, current evidence favors universal screening for GDM using the one-step method. Early screening for GDM is not favorably supported by the literature.

Optimal Obstetric Management for Women with Diabetes: the Benefits and Costs of Fetal Surveillance.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To elaborate on the risks and benefits associated with antenatal fetal surveillance for stillbirth prevention in women with diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Women with pregestational diabetes have a 3- to 5-fold increased odds of stillbirth compared to women without diabetes. The stillbirth risk in women with gestational diabetes (GDM) is more controversial; while recent data suggest the odds for stillbirth are approximately 50% higher in women with GDM at term (37 weeks and beyond) than in those without GDM, it is unclear if this risk is seen in women with optimal glycemic control. Current professional society guidelines are broad with respect to fetal testing strategies and delivery timing in women with diabetes. The data supporting strategies to reduce the risk of stillbirth in women with diabetes are limited. Antepartum fetal surveillance should be performed to reduce stillbirth rates; however, the optimal test, frequency of testing, and delivery timing are not yet clear. Future studies of obstetric management for women with diabetes should consider not just individual but also system level costs and benefits associated with antenatal surveillance.

Cost-effectiveness of healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion in pregnant women at increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: economic evaluation alongside the DALI study, a European multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with perinatal health risks to both mother and offspring, and represents a large economic burden. The DALI study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial, undertaken to add to the knowledge base on the effectiveness of interventions for pregnant women at increased risk for GDM. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion intervention compared to usual care among pregnant women at increased risk of GDM from a societal perspective. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a European multicenter-randomized controlled trial. A total of 435 pregnant women at increased risk of GDM in primary and secondary care settings in nine European countries, were recruited and randomly allocated to a healthy eating and physical activity promotion intervention (HE + PA intervention), a healthy eating promotion intervention (HE intervention), or a physical activity promotion intervention (PA intervention). Main outcome measures were gestational weight gain, fasting glucose, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and societal costs. RESULTS: Between-group total cost and effect differences were not significant, besides significantly less gestational weight gain in the HE + PA group compared with the usual care group at 35-37 weeks (-2.3;95%CI:-3.7;-0.9). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the HE + PA intervention was the preferred intervention strategy. At 35-37 weeks, it depends on the decision-makers' willingness to pay per kilogram reduction in gestational weight gain whether the HE + PA intervention is cost-effective for gestational weight gain, whereas it was not cost-effective for fasting glucose and HOMA-IR. After delivery, the HE + PA intervention was cost-effective for QALYs, which was predominantly caused by a large reduction in delivery-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy eating and physical activity promotion was found to be the preferred strategy for limiting gestational weight gain. As this intervention was cost-effective for QALYs after delivery, this study lends support for broad implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN70595832 . Registered 2 December 2011.

The short-term economic burden of gestational diabetes mellitus in Italy.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is rising in all developed countries. This study aimed at assessing the short-term economic burden of GDM from the Italian healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A model was built over the last pregnancy trimester (i.e., from the 28th gestational week until childbirth included). The National Hospital Discharge Database (2014) was accessed to estimate delivery outcome probabilities and inpatient costs in GDM and normal pregnancies (i.e., euglycemia). International Classification of Disease-9th Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD9-CM) diagnostic codes and Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) codes were used to identify GDM cases and different types of delivery (i.e., vaginal or cesarean) within the database. Neonatal outcomes probabilities were estimated from the literature and included macrosomia, hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, shoulder dystocia, respiratory distress, and brachial plexus injury. Additional data sources such as regional documents, official price and tariff lists, national statistics and expert opinion were used to populate the model. The average cost per case was calculated at national level to estimate the annual economic burden of GDM. One-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to quantify the uncertainty around base case results. RESULTS: The amount of pregnancies complicated by GDM in Italy was assessed at 54,783 in 2014 using a prevalence rate of 10.9%. The antenatal outpatient cost per case was estimated at €43.7 in normal pregnancies compared to €370.6 in GDM patients, which is equivalent to a weighted sum of insulin- (14%; €1034.6) and diet- (86%; €262.5) treated women's costs. Inpatient delivery costs were assessed at €1601.6 and €1150.3 for euglycemic women and their infants, and at €1835.0 and €1407.7 for GDM women and their infants, respectively. Thus, the overall cost per case difference between GDM and normal pregnancies was equal to €817.8 (+ 29.2%), resulting in an economic burden of about €44.8 million in 2014 at national level. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis yielded a cost per case difference ranging between €464.9 and €1164.8 in 80% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of GDM in Italy is substantial even accounting for short-term medical costs only. Future research also addressing long-term consequences from a broader societal perspective is recommended.

The cost-effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary and secondary care in the Republic of Ireland.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in primary and secondary care settings, compared with a no-screening option, in the Republic of Ireland. METHODS: The analysis was based on a decision-tree model of alternative screening strategies in primary and secondary care settings. It synthesised data generated from a randomised controlled trial (screening uptake) and from the literature. Costs included those relating to GDM screening and treatment, and the care of adverse outcomes. Effects were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The impact of the parameter uncertainty was assessed in a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Screening in either setting was found to be superior to no screening, i.e. it provided for QALY gains and cost savings. Screening in secondary care was found to be superior to screening in primary care, providing for modest QALY gains of 0.0006 and a saving of €21.43 per screened case. The conclusion held with high certainty across the range of ceiling ratios from zero to €100,000 per QALY and across a plausible range of input parameters. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The results of this study demonstrate that implementation of universal screening is cost-effective. This is an argument in favour of introducing a properly designed and funded national programme of screening for GDM, although affordability remains to be assessed. In the current environment, screening for GDM in secondary care settings appears to be the better solution in consideration of cost-effectiveness.

Does charge-free screening improve detection of gestational diabetes in women from deprived areas: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) occurs in 2-6 % of all pregnancies. We investigated whether area level deprivation is associated with a higher risk for GDM and whether GDM detection rates in deprived regions changed after the introduction of charge-free GDM screening in Germany in 2012. METHODS: We analyzed population-based data from Bavaria, Germany, comprising n = 587,621 deliveries in obstetric units between 2008 and 2014. Area level deprivation was assessed municipality-based using the Bavarian Index of Multiple Deprivation (BIMD), divided into quintiles and assigned to each mother based on her residential address. We estimated annual odds ratios (ORs) for GDM diagnosis by BIMD quintile with adjustment for maternal obesity, maternal age, migration background and single mother status. RESULTS: Women from the most deprived regions were less likely to be diagnosed with GDM before introduction of charge-free GDM screening (OR = 0.76 [95 % confidence interval: 0.66, 0.86] compared to least deprived areas), in 2008. In contrast, high area level deprivation was associated with significantly increased risk of GDM diagnosis in 2013 (OR [95 % confidence interval] = 1.15 [1.02, 1.29]). The OR was also elevated, although not significantly, in 2014 (OR [95 % confidence interval] = 1.05 [0.93, 1.18]). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of GDM seems to have been underreported in women from highly deprived areas before introduction of the charge-free GDM screening in Germany. In fact, women living in deprived regions seem to have an increased risk for GDM and may profit from access to charge-free GDM screening.

"Why screen if we cannot follow-up and manage?" Challenges for gestational diabetes screening and management in low and lower-middle income countries: results of a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of gestational diabetes (GDM) in low and lower middle income countries (LLMIC) is increasing. Despite its associated short and long term complications for mothers and their newborns, there is a lack of knowledge about how to detect and manage GDM. The objective of our study was to identify the challenges that first line healthcare providers in LLMIC face in screening and management of GDM. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of key informants from 40 low and lower-middle income countries in Africa, South-Asia and Latin-America by sending out questionnaires to 182 gynecologists, endocrinologists and medical doctors. Sixty-seven respondents from 26 LLMIC provided information on the challenges they encounter. Data was thematically analyzed and revealed eight overarching themes, including guidelines; human resources; access; costs; availability of services, equipment and drugs; patient and community factors; and collaboration and communication. RESULTS: Unavailability of guidelines combined with lack of knowledge about GDM on the part of both providers and patients poses a substantial barrier to detection and management of GDM, leading to deficiencies in screening and counseling. Limited access to regular monitoring and follow-up care as a result of distance and costs, in particular with respect to additional expenses related to specific tests and changes in diet were identified as important challenges. Services were not available at all levels nor was adequate testing equipment. Patient factors included lack of motivation and compliance with the recommended therapy. Respondents also highlighted the lack of communication and collaboration between different specialists and treatment delays as a result of patients being seen by multiple providers. CONCLUSIONS: Providers from LLMIC face various challenges related to screening and managing GDM. Policy makers need to address these challenges by strengthening their health care system as a whole and by assuring that non-communicable diseases are better integrated into the existing packages of free or subsidized maternal health care.

Trends in the incidence of diabetes, its clinical sequelae, and associated costs in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Increasing diabetes prevalence affects a substantial number of pregnant women in the United States. Our aims were to evaluate health outcomes, medical costs, risks and types of complications associated with diabetes in pregnancy for mothers and newborns. METHODS: In this retrospective claims analysis, patients were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan(®) database (2004-2011 inclusive). Participants were aged 18-45 years, with ascertainable diabetes status [Yes/No], date of birth event >2005 and continuous health plan enrolment ≥21 months before and 3 months after the birth. RESULTS: In total, 839 792 pregnancies were identified, and 66 041 (7.86%) were associated with diabetes mellitus [type 1 (T1DM), 0.13%; type 2 (T2DM), 1.21%; gestational (GDM), 6.29%; and GDM progressing to T2DM (patients without prior diabetes who had a T2DM diagnosis after the birth event), 0.23%]. Relative risk (RR) of stillbirth (2.51), miscarriage (1.28) and Caesarean section (C-section) (1.77) was significantly greater with T2DM versus non-diabetes. Risk of C-section was also significantly greater for other diabetes types [RR 1.92 (T1DM); 1.37 (GDM); 1.63 (GDM progressing to T2DM)]. Risk of overall major congenital (RR ≥ 1.17), major congenital circulatory (RR ≥ 1.19) or major congenital heart (RR ≥ 1.18) complications was greater in newborns of mothers with diabetes versus without. Mothers with T2DM had significantly higher risk (RR ≥ 1.36) of anaemia, depression, hypertension, infection, migraine, or cardiac, obstetrical or respiratory complications than non-diabetes patients. Mean medical costs were higher with all diabetes types, particularly T1DM ($27 531), than non-diabetes ($14 355). CONCLUSIONS: Complications and costs of healthcare were greater with diabetes, highlighting the need to optimize diabetes management in pregnancy.

Short- and long-term effects of gestational diabetes mellitus on healthcare cost: a cross-sectional comparative study in the ATLANTIC DIP cohort.

AIMS: This paper examines the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and costs of care during pregnancy and 2-5 years post pregnancy. METHODS: Healthcare utilization during pregnancy was measured for a sample of 658 women drawn from the Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy (ATLANTIC DIP) network. Healthcare utilization 2-5 years post pregnancy was assessed for a subsample of 348 women via a postal questionnaire. A vector of unit costs was applied to healthcare activity to calculate the costs of care at both time points. Differences in cost for women with gestational diabetes mellitus compared with those with normal glucose tolerance during the pregnancy were examined using univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Gestational diabetes mellitus was independently associated with an additional €817.60 during pregnancy (€1192.1 in the gestational diabetes mellitus group, €511.6 in the normal glucose tolerance group), in the form of additional delivery and neonatal care costs, and an additional €680.50 in annual healthcare costs 2-5 years after the index pregnancy (€6252.4 in the gestational diabetes mellitus group, €5434.8 in the normal glucose tolerance group). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with increased costs of care during and post pregnancy. They provide indication of the associated cost that can be avoided or reduced by the screening, prevention and management of gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnancy. These estimates are useful for further studies that examine the cost and cost-effectiveness of such programmes.

Comparison of maternal morbidity and medical costs during pregnancy and delivery between patients with gestational diabetes and patients with pre-existing diabetes.

AIMS: To evaluate the effects of gestational diabetes and pre-existing diabetes on maternal morbidity and medical costs, using data from the Korea National Health Insurance Claims Database of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. METHODS: Delivery cases in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (459 842, 442 225 and 380 431 deliveries) were extracted from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. The complications and medical costs were compared among the following three pregnancy groups: normal, gestational diabetes and pre-existing diabetes. RESULTS: Although, the rates of pre-existing diabetes did not fluctuate (2.5, 2.4 and 2.7%) throughout the study, the rate of gestational diabetes steadily increased (4.6, 6.2 and 8.0%). Furthermore, the rates of pre-existing diabetes and gestational diabetes increased in conjunction with maternal age, pre-existing hypertension and cases of multiple pregnancy. The risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension, urinary tract infections, premature delivery, liver disease and chronic renal disease were greater in the gestational diabetes and pre-existing diabetes groups than in the normal group. The risk of venous thromboembolism, antepartum haemorrhage, shoulder dystocia and placenta disorder were greater in the pre-existing diabetes group, but not the gestational diabetes group, compared with the normal group. The medical costs associated with delivery, the costs during pregnancy and the number of in-hospital days for the subjects in the pre-existing diabetes group were the highest among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the rates of pre-existing diabetes and gestational diabetes increased with maternal age at pregnancy and were associated with increases in medical costs and pregnancy-related complications.

Association between maternal body mass index during pregnancy, short-term morbidity, and increased health service costs: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of maternal body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)) on clinical complications, inpatient admissions, and additional short-term costs to the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using an unselected population database. SETTING: Obstetric units in Scotland, 2003-2010. POPULATION: A total of 124,280 singleton deliveries in 109,592 women with a maternal BMI recorded prior to 16 weeks of gestation. METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study of singleton deliveries, with multivariable analysis used to assess short-term morbidity and health service costs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal and offspring outcomes, number and duration of hospital admissions, and healthcare costs. RESULTS: Using multivariable analysis, in comparison with women of normal weight, women who were overweight, obese, or severely obese had an increased risk of essential hypertension [1.87 (1.18-2.96), 11.90 (7.18-19.72), and 36.10 (18.33-71.10)], pregnancy-induced hypertension [1.76 (1.60-1.95), 2.98 (2.65-3.36), and 4.48 (3.57-5.63)], gestational diabetes [3.39 (2.30-4.99), 11.90 (7.54-18.79), and 67.40 (37.84-120.03)], emergency caesarean section [1.94 (1.71-2.21), 3.40 (2.91-3.96), and 14.34 (9.38-21.94)], and elective caesarean section [2.06 (1.84-2.30), 4.61 (4.06-5.24), and 17.92 (13.20-24.34)]. Compared with women of normal weight, women who were underweight, overweight, obese, or severely obese were associated with an 8, 16, 45, and 88% increase in the number of admissions, respectively, and women who were overweight, obese, or severely obese were associated with a 4, 9, and 12% increase in the duration of stay (all P < 0.001). The additional maternity costs [mean (95% CI), adjusted analyses] for women who were underweight, overweight, obese, or severely obese were £102.27 (£48.49-156.06), £59.89 (£41.61-78.17), £202.46 (£178.61-226.31), and £350.75 (£284.82-416.69), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal BMI influences maternal and neonatal morbidity, the number and duration of maternal and neonatal admissions, and health service costs.

Lower treatment targets for gestational diabetes: is lower really better?

Proposed lower diagnostic thresholds and lower treatment targets for gestational diabetes have been controversial internationally. Intervention trials for the recently revised lower Australian treatment targets are currently lacking. While there may be benefits, lowering treatment targets may cause a number of harms including increased risk of hypoglycaemia in pregnant women, greater medicolegal risk for health practitioners, and heavier economic costs for the health system. Regional and remote care providers in particular will have greater costs, and may be overwhelmed in attempts to implement new treatment targets. An excessively glucose-centric focus may divert attention and resources from identifying and addressing other important and growing contributors to adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as obesity. Important groups such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians may not gain overall benefit from lowering treatment targets for gestational diabetes because of current low birthweights and the effect of social costs. It has not yet been established whether implementing lower treatment targets for gestational diabetes will create more benefit than harm. Implementation at this stage is premature.

Cost-effectiveness of antenatal fetal surveillance for medication-treated gestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of starting antenatal fetal surveillance at 32 vs. 36 weeks, in medication-treated gestational diabetes. METHODS: We performed a 2017-2022 retrospective cohort study of patients with medication-treated GDM who underwent BPPs. Patients diagnosed before 24 weeks, those delivered before 32 weeks, and those without BPPs or delivery data were excluded. Demographic and outcome data were abstracted by chart review. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis regarding two outcomes: stillbirth, and decision to alter delivery timing following abnormal BPPs. RESULTS: A total of 652 pregnancies were included. Patients were 49% privately insured, 25% publicly insured, and 26% uninsured. We assumed that each BPP cost $145. In total, 1,284 BPPs occurred after 36 weeks, costing $186,180, and 2,041 BPPs occurred between 32 and 36 weeks, costing an additional $295,945. Twelve deliveries resulted from abnormal BPPs, all after 36 weeks. No stillbirths occurred. The cost to attempt to avoid one stillbirth was $40,177 across all patients. In our sample, starting surveillance at 36 weeks would have theoretically avoided all stillbirths, with cost savings per avoided stillbirth of $51,572 for privately insured patients, $14,123 for publicly insured patients, and $17,799 for patients without insurance. CONCLUSION: Based on this population with no stillbirths and no BPPs dictating delivery before 36 weeks, surveillance after 36 weeks may be safe and cost-effective. Our findings reflect opportunities for shared decision making and potential practice change, with greatest impact for low socioeconomic status patients and those without insurance.

Exploring Structural Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Gestational Diabetes Screening: An Application Example from Norway.

BACKGROUND: Screening pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has recently been expanded in Norway, although screening eligibility criteria continue to be debated. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative GDM screening strategies and explored structural uncertainty and the value of future research in determining the most cost-effective eligibility criteria for GDM screening in Norway. DESIGN: We developed a probabilistic decision tree to estimate the total costs and health benefits (i.e., quality-adjusted life-years; QALYs) associated with 4 GDM screening strategies (universal, current guidelines, high-risk, and no screening). We identified the most cost-effective strategy as the strategy with the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below a Norwegian benchmark for cost-effectiveness ($28,400/QALY). We excluded inconclusive evidence on the effects of screening on later maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the primary analysis but included this outcome in a secondary analysis using 2 different sources of evidence (i.e., Cochrane or US Preventive Services Task Force). To quantify decision uncertainty, we conducted scenario analysis and value-of-information analyses. RESULTS: Current screening recommendations were considered inefficient in all analyses, while universal screening was most cost-effective in our primary analysis ($26,014/QALY gained) and remained most cost-effective when we assumed a preventive effect of GDM treatment on T2DM. When we assumed no preventive effect, high-risk screening was preferred ($19,115/QALY gained). When we assumed GDM screening does not prevent perinatal death in scenario analysis, all strategies except no screening exceeded the cost-effectiveness benchmark. In most analyses, decision uncertainty was high. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective screening strategy, ranging from no screening to universal screening, depended on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on perinatal death and T2DM. Further research on these long-term outcomes could reduce decision uncertainty. HIGHLIGHTS: This article analyses the cost-effectiveness of 4 alternative gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening strategies in Norway: universal screening, current (broad) screening, high-risk screening, and no screening.The current Norwegian screening recommendations were considered inefficient under all analyses.The most cost-effective screening strategy ranged from no screening to universal screening depending on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on later maternal diabetes and perinatal death.The parameters related to later maternal diabetes and perinatal death accounted for most of the decision uncertainty.