Abdominal sacral colpopexy versus sacrospinous ligament fixation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: For the surgical correction of apical prolapse the abdominal approach is associated with better outcomes; however, it is more expensive than the transvaginal approach. This cost-effectiveness analysis compares abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) with sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) to determine if the improved outcomes of ASC justify the increased expense. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was created comparing ASC with SSLF using data-modeling software, TreeAge Pro (2013), which included the following outcomes: post-operative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with possible mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement, prolapse recurrence with possible re-operation, and post-operative dyspareunia. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than $50,000 per quality-associated life year (QALY). Base-case, threshold, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: At the baseline, ASC is more expensive than SSLF ($13,988 vs $11,950), but is more effective (QALY 1.53 vs 1.45) and is cost-effective (ICER $24,574/QALY) at 2 years. ASC was not cost-effective if the following four thresholds were met: the rate of post-operative SUI was above 36 % after ASC or below 28 % after SSLF; the rate of MUS placement for post-operative SUI was above 60 % after ASC or below 13 % after SSLF; the rate of recurrent prolapse was above 15 % after ASC or below 4 % after SSLF; the rate of post-operative dyspareunia was above 59 % after ASC or below 19 % after SSLF. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal sacral colpopexy can be cost-effective compared with sacrospinous ligament fixation; however, as the post-operative outcomes of SSLF improve, SSLF can be considered a cost-effective alternative.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening (IVF/PGS) is cost effective compared with expectant management in achieving live birth for patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). DESIGN: Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes. SETTING: Academic recurrent pregnancy loss programs. PATIENT(S): Women with unexplained RPL. INTERVENTION(S): IVF/PGS with 24-chromosome screening and expectant management. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Cost per live birth. RESULT(S): The IVF/PGS strategy had a live-birth rate of 53% and a clinical miscarriage rate of 7%. Expectant management had a live-birth rate of 67% and clinical miscarriage rate of 24%. The IVF/PGS strategy was 100-fold more expensive, costing $45,300 per live birth compared with $418 per live birth with expectant management. CONCLUSION(S): In this model, IVF/PGS was not a cost-effective strategy for increasing live birth. Furthermore, the live-birth rate with IVF/PGS needs to be 91% to be cost effective compared with expectant management.

Gestational diabetes screening with the new IADPSG guidelines: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the cost effectiveness of gestational diabetes mellitus screening using the new International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: A decision analytic model was built comparing routine screening with the 2-hour (2h) oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) vs the 1-hour glucose challenge test. All probabilities, costs, and benefits were derived from the literature. Base case, sensitivity analyses, and a Monte Carlo simulation were performed. RESULTS: Screening with the 2h OGTT was more expensive, more effective, and cost effective at $61,503/quality-adjusted life year. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis, the more inclusive IADPSG diagnostic approach remained cost effective as long as an additional 2.0% or more of patients were diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: Screening at 24-28 weeks' gestational age under the new IADPSG guidelines with the 2h OGTT is expensive but cost effective in improving maternal and neonatal outcomes. How the health care system will provide expanded care to this group of women will need to be examined.

Treating mild gestational diabetes mellitus: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of treating mild gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). STUDY DESIGN: A decision analytic model was built to compare treating vs not treating mild GDM. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). All probabilities, costs, and benefits were derived from the literature. Base case, sensitivity analyses, and a Monte Carlo simulation were performed. RESULTS: Treating mild GDM was more expensive, more effective, and cost-effective at $20,412 per QALY. Treatment remained cost-effective when the incremental cost to treat GDM was less than $3555 or if treatment met at least 49% of its reported efficacy at the baseline cost to treat of $1786. CONCLUSION: Treating mild GDM is cost-effective in terms of improving maternal and neonatal outcomes including decreased rates of preeclampsia, cesarean sections, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, permanent and transient brachial plexus injury, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions.