OBJECTIVE: To compare three strategies for gestational diabetes screening (i) screening of high-risk pregnant women with the 50 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); (ii) screening of all pregnant women with the 50 g OGTT; (iii) screening of all pregnant women according to the 75 g OGTT. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. The outcome measures, i.e. macrosomia, prematurity, perinatal mortality, hypertensive disorders rates were estimated from published studies and the costs from a prospective study involving 120 pregnant women. RESULTS: Compared to the first strategy, the cost to obtain one unit of additional effectiveness with the second screening strategy, was up to 1.1 times more expensive, and with the third strategy was up to 3.7 times more expensive. CONCLUSION: The costs per case prevented reflect a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) for screening of high-risk pregnant women by 50 g oral glucose test.
OBJECTIVE: To compare three strategies for gestational diabetes screening (i) screening of high-risk pregnant women with the 50 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); (ii) screening of all pregnant women with the 50 g OGTT; (iii) screening of all pregnant women according to the 75 g OGTT. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. The outcome measures, i.e. macrosomia, prematurity, perinatal mortality, hypertensive disorders rates were estimated from published studies and the costs from a prospective study involving 120 pregnant women. RESULTS: Compared to the first strategy, the cost to obtain one unit of additional effectiveness with the second screening strategy, was up to 1.1 times more expensive, and with the third strategy was up to 3.7 times more expensive. CONCLUSION: The costs per case prevented reflect a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) for screening of high-risk pregnant women by 50 g oral glucose test.