Cited by 35Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePregnancy and Medication Impact

Cost-effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment of early gestational diabetes mellitus: economic evaluation of the TOBOGM study, an international multicenter randomized controlled trial

Open access
Haque, Mohammad M., Tannous, W. Kathy, Herman, William H., Immanuel, Jincy, Hague, William M., Teede, Helena, Enticott, Joanne, Cheung, N. Wah +13 more·2024·eClinicalMedicine

Abstract

Background A recently undertaken multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) " Treatment Of BOoking Gestational diabetes Mellitus" (TOBOGM: 2017–2022) found that the diagnosis and treatment of pregnant women with early gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) improved pregnancy outcomes. Based on data from the trial, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment of early GDM (from <20 weeks') among women with risk factors for hyperglycemia in pregnancy compared with usual care (no treatment until 24–28 weeks') from a healthcare perspective. Methods Participants' healthcare resource utilization data were collected from their self-reported questionnaires and hospital records, and valued using the unit costs obtained from standard Australian national sources. Costs were reported in US dollars ($) using the purchasing power parity (PPP) estimates to facilitate comparison of costs across countries. Intention-to-treat (ITT) principle was followed. Missing cost data were replaced using multiple imputations. Bootstrapping method was used to estimate the uncertainty around mean cost difference and cost-effectiveness results. Bootstrapped cost–effect pairs were used to plot the cost-effectiveness (CE) plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). Findings Diagnosis and treatment of early GDM was more effective and tended to be less costly, i.e., dominant (cost-saving) [−5.6% composite adverse pregnancy outcome (95% CI: −10.1%, −1.2%), −$1373 (95% CI: −$3,749, $642)] compared with usual care. Our findings were confirmed by both the CE plane (88% of the bootstrapped cost–effect pairs fall in the south-west quadrant), and CEAC (the probability of the intervention being cost-effective ranged from 84% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold value of $10,000–99% at a WTP threshold value of $100,000 per composite adverse pregnancy outcome prevented). Sub-group analyses demonstrated that diagnosis and treatment of early GDM among women in the higher glycemic range (fasting blood glucose 95–109 mg/dl [5.3–6.0 mmol/L], 1-h blood glucose ≥191 mg/dl [10.6 mmol/L] and/or 2-h blood glucose 162–199 mg/dl [9.0–11.0 mmol/L]) was more effective and less costly (dominant) [ − 7.8% composite adverse pregnancy outcome (95% CI: −14.6%, −0.9%), −$2795 (95% CI: −$6,638, −$533)]; the intervention was more effective and tended to be less costly [ − 8.9% composite adverse pregnancy outcome (95% CI: −15.1%, −2.6%), −$5548 (95% CI: −$16,740, $1547)] among women diagnosed before 14 weeks' gestation as well. Interpretation Our findings highlight the potential health and economic benefits from the diagnosis and treatment of early GDM among women with risk factors for hyperglycemia in pregnancy and supports its implementation. Long-term follow-up studies are recommended as a key future area of research to assess the potential long-term health benefits and economic consequences of the intervention. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council (grants 1104231 and 2009326), Region O¨rebro Research Committee (grants Dnr OLL-970566 and OLL-942177), Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna (project 15,205 and project 23,026), South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit (grant 2016), and Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant (2019).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102610

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [1]World Health Organisation Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy. WHO/NMH/MND/13.2 2013 World Health Organisation Geneva Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85975/1/WHO_NMH_MND_13.2_eng.pdf 24199271
  2. [2]Saeedi M. Cao Y. Fadl H. Gustafson H. Simmons D. Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus when implementing the IADPSG criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis Diabetes Res Clin Pract 172 2021 108642 33359574
  3. [3]HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group Metzger B.E. Lowe L.P. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes N Engl J Med 358 19 2008 1991 2002 18463375
  4. [4]Bellamy L. Casas J.P. Hingorani A.D. Williams D. Type 2 diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis Lancet 373 9677 2009 1773 1779 19465232
  5. [8]American Diabetes Association Management of diabetes in pregnancy: standards of care in diabetes-2023 Diabetes Care 46 Suppl1 2023 S254 S266 36507645 PMC9810465
  6. [9]Davidson K.W. Barry M.J. Mangione C.M. Screening for gestational diabetes: US preventive services task force recommendation statement JAMA 326 6 2021 531 538 34374716
  7. [11]Metzger B.E. Gabbe S.G. Persson B. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy Diabetes Care 33 3 2010 676 682 20190296 PMC2827530
  8. [12]McIntyre H.D. Sacks D.A. Barbour L.A. Issues with the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in early pregnancy Diabetes Care 39 1 2016 53 54 26519336
  9. [13]Meyer W.J. Carbone J. Gauthier D.W. Gottmann D.A. Early gestational glucose screening and gestational diabetes J Reprod Med 41 9 1996 675 679 8887193
  10. [14]Super D.M. Edelberg S.C. Philipson E.H. Hertz R.H. Kalhan S.C. Diagnosis of gestational diabetes in early pregnancy Diabetes Care 14 4 1991 288 294 2060431
  11. [16]Immanuel J. Simmons D. Screening and treatment for early-onset gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis Curr Diab Rep 17 11 2017 115 28971305
  12. [17]Riskin-Mashiah S. Younes G. Damti A. Auslender R. First-trimester fasting hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes Diabetes Care 32 9 2009 1639 1643 19549728 PMC2732138
  13. [18]Bhavadharini B. Anjana R.M. Deepa M. Association between number of abnormal glucose values and severity of fasting plasma glucose in IADPSG criteria and maternal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus Acta Diabetol 59 3 2022 349 357 34705110
  14. [19]Harreiter J. Simmons D. Desoye G. IADPSG and WHO 2013 gestational diabetes mellitus criteria identify obese women with marked insulin resistance in early pregnancy Diabetes Care 39 7 2016 e90 e92 27208336
  15. [20]Raets L. Beunen K. Benhalima K. Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in early pregnancy: what is the evidence? J Clin Med 10 6 2021 1257 33803650 PMC8003050
  16. [21]Harper L.M. Jauk V. Longo S. Biggio J.R. Szychowski J.M. Tita A.T. Early gestational diabetes screening in obese women: a randomized controlled trial Am J Obstet Gynecol 222 5 2020 495.e1 495.e8 PMC7196002 31926951
  17. [22]Simmons D. Nema J. Parton C. The treatment of booking gestational diabetes mellitus (TOBOGM) pilot randomised controlled trial BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18 1 2018 151 29747594 PMC5946423
  18. [24]Zhu W.W. Yang H.X. Wei Y.M. Evaluation of the value of fasting plasma glucose in the first prenatal visit to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus in China Diabetes Care 36 3 2013 586 590 23193214 PMC3579369
  19. [26]Drummond M.F. Sculpher M.J. Claxton K. Stoddart G.L. Torrance G.W. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes 4th ed. 2015 Oxford University Press Oxford, UK
  20. [27]O'Reilly D. Gaebel K. Xie F. Tarride J.E. Goeree R. Health economic evaluations help inform payers of the best use of scarce health care resources Int J Circumpolar Health 70 4 2011 417 427 21924008
  21. [28]Simmons D. Hague W.M. Teede H.J. Hyperglycaemia in early pregnancy: the Treatment of Booking Gestational diabetes Mellitus (TOBOGM) study. A randomized controlled trial Med J Aust 209 9 2018 405 406 29793404
  22. [36]Rubin D.B. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys 2004 John Wiley & Sons New York
  23. [37]Briggs A.H. O'Brien B.J. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 10 2001 179 184 11252048
  24. [38]Dakin H. Wordsworth S. Cost-minimisation analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis, revisited Health Econ 22 2013 22 34 22109960
  25. [39]Moss J.R. Crowther C.A. Hiller J.E. Willson K.J. Robinson J.S. Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women Group. Costs and consequences of treatment for mild gestational diabetes mellitus - evaluation from the ACHOIS randomised trial BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 7 2007 27 17963528 PMC2241640

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haque, M. M., Tannous, W. K., Herman, W. H., Immanuel, J., Hague, W. M., Teede, H., Enticott, J., Cheung, N. W., Hibbert, E., Nolan, C. J., Peek, M. J., Wong, V. W., Flack, J. R., Mclean, M., Sweeting, A., Gianatti, E., Kautzky-Willer, A., Harreiter, J., Mohan, V., Backman, H., & Simmons, D.
Affiliations
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Liverpool Hospital (AU)
  • Bankstown Lidcombe Hospital (AU)
  • Blacktown & Mount Druitt Hospital (AU)
  • Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • Fiona Stanley Hospital (AU)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • Madras Diabetes Research Foundation (IN)
  • Örebro University (SE)
Corresponding author
Simmons, David
Venue
eClinicalMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-05
Volume
71
Pages
102610
ISSN
2589-5370 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4395076678
Cited by
35
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 7
FWCI
19.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EClinicalMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (2009326, 1104231, OLL-942177, OLL-970566)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, cost-effectiveness, hyperglycemia in pregnancy, adverse pregnancy outcomes, glycemic control, fasting blood glucose, healthcare resource utilization, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, cost-effectiveness plane, subgroup analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review