Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of treatments for Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS)

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation volume 22, Article number: 62 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Treatment cost and high prevalence of Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) is a very challenging issue globally. Due to this reason; current study was conducted to determine pharmaco-economy of conventional and non-conventional treatments for the management of PCOS.

Methods

Prospective Cross-Sectional study was conducted in the metropolitan city of Karachi from January – December 2019. Primary data of 200 PCOS patients were collected from different hospitals and clinics. An instrument was used to collect data pertaining to the direct and indirect cost associated with the disease management. Collected data was analyzed by the tools for cost analysis and software called Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) – 22.

Results

In Cost Minimization Analysis (CMA); Allopathic treatment [Mean cost/month: PKR:4479.32 ± 350.95 (USD:27.46 ± 2.15)], Herbal treatment [Mean cost/month: PKR:1527.78 ± 78.15 (USD:9.37 ± 0.48)], Combination treatment [Mean cost/month: PKR:2803.09 ± 654.22 (USD:17.18 ± 4.01)], and Homoeopathic treatment [Mean cost/month: PKR:976.95 ± 46.19 (USD:5.99 ± 0.28)]. Incremental cost/month for Allopathic treatment is 358%, Herbal treatment is 56%, Combination treatment is 187%. In Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA); Allopathic treatment (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/month: 1334.24), Herbal treatment (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/month: 936.41), Combination treatment (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/month: 1017.09). Due to lowest cost of Homeopathic treatment, cost of Homeopathic treatment was considered as a threshold value. In-direct cost/month of Allopathic treatment is PKR:593.33 ± 24.00 (USD:3.64 ± 0.15), Herbal treatment is PKR:307.84 ± 26.69 (USD:1.89 ± 0.16), Combination treatment is PKR:409.09 ± 45.63 (USD:2.51 ± 0.28) and Homoeopathic treatment is PKR:300.00 ± 26.39 (USD:1.84 ± 0.16).

Conclusion

The most cost-effective is treatment is Homeopathic; Herbal treatment is second most cost-effective option for the treatment of PCOS. Lowest direct and indirect costs and short treatment duration collaboratively lessen the %incremental cost per year and incremental cost effectiveness ratio per year.

Background

The Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) is one of the common female disorders; complications pertaining to PCOS are reproductive, metabolic, or psychological disorders. Prevalence rate of PCOS in different age group of women have been quantitatively measured in the range of 2.2–22.5% globally [1]. Due to high prevalence of PCOS, it is expected that the cost of treatment would be very high. According to one of the literature; the healthcare cost of treatment of PCOS in U.K (United Kingdom) is approximately 237 million GBP (British Pounds) in 2014, which is expected to rise in upcoming years [2]. Average cost per year per patient is in a range of 723–950 GBP for the duration of around 25 years follow up [2]. Highest cost burden is due to management of type-II diabetes in PCOS patients [3].

Oral contraceptives, metformin and ovulation induction drugs have been commonly prescribed as a pharmacological agents for the management of PCOS [4]. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) system of treatments have gained substantial recognition by advanced research studies [5]. Herbal medicines and Homeopathic medicines are listed as the top of the CAM therapies [6]. PCOS is believed to be a complex disorder that significantly compromises the quality of life and thereby increasing the healthcare burden [7]. According to another estimate, the economic burden of PCOS is about 8 billion USD annually in 2020 [8]. Healthcare decision-makers should develop policies and prioritize possible interventions for the management of PCOS [9].

Utilization of CAM has substantially increased from 25 to 50% [10]. In Pakistan, approximately half of the population prefers to use CAM for treating different ailments. Homeopathy, Herbal and combination therapies are the most preferred modes of alternative treatments [11]. Specifically, women use CAM commonly for many gynecological problems [12]. However, sound data is not available regarding cost-effectiveness and duration of treatment of CAM. Some published evidences of pharmaco-economics exists for the Allopathic medicines; yet there is a lack of such research studies on Alternative medicines [13] especially for PCOS. By considering all these scenarios, current study was conducted to compare Pharmaco-economics of PCOS with conventional and unconventional treatment options.

Methods

Study design and duration

Observational, cross-sectional study was conducted in the metropolitan city Karachi, Pakistan from January 2019 to December 2019.

Place of study

Outpatient clinics at multiple centers, hospitals, private Homeopathic Clinic and Matabs of Herbal medicine practitioners (Hakeems).

Sample size

Precision analysis technique was used to calculate the number of participants in the study [14]. Minimum sample size of study was 198 patients. Two hundred (N = 200) patients with PCOS were recruited and interviewed.

Primary data collection

A specially designed, validated and structured instrument entitled “Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for PCOS” (CET-PCOS) was used to collect the data [5]. Inform consent was taken from each patient before collection of data.

Inclusion criteria

Women that have been diagnosed with PCOS, in the age group of 18–45 years. Participants must meet the Rotterdam diagnostic criteria of PCOS [15], which defines PCOS by the presence of any two or all the three clinical features i.e. oligo/amenorrhea, hyperandrogenism and polycystic ovaries on ultrasound.

Exclusion Criteria

Females were excluded if not met Rotterdam diagnostic criteria, suspects of PCOS, pregnant and breastfeeding PCOS patients, patients on weight-loss medications.

Ethical approval

The Institutional Bio-Ethical Committee (IBC) of University of Karachi approved the study design and methods (Reference Number: IBC-KU 50). Study is also approved by Advanced Studies & Research Board, University of Karachi (Reference Number: ASRB/No./04164/Pharm.). Prior to initiating the survey, a written informed consent was obtained from each patient after explaining the research and its objectives. All researchers ensured the maintenance of patient data confidentiality in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki [16].

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for PCOS instrument

A 40-items instrument entitled “Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for PCOS” (CET-PCOS) was developed in which conventional and alternative therapies were compared in terms of patient’s satisfaction and the total cost of therapy. A detailed section of questionnaire was based on patient’s chosen system of treatment, number and cost of physician’s visits, duration of treatment, cost of medicines and outcome measures of these respective treatments.

Data analysis

To calculate the ultimate economic outcomes of all therapies in terms of direct and indirect cost and healthcare effects, the cost minimization analysis (CMA) and cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) were performed. CMA is a method of economic evaluation that chooses the least expensive alternative while the CEA is an important tool that compares interventions along with two separate dimensions; costs and effectiveness [17]. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 22) was employed for data processing and statistical analysis of the mean and standard error of direct cost (cost of medicine + physician consultation fee) and the mean and standard error of indirect cost of treatment (travelling fee). Two way sensitivity analyses was done by keeping 5% discount rate to enhance the strength of cost effectiveness analyses.

Results

Cost minimization analysis (CMA) computed the mean cost and % incremental cost per month (Table-1). Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) calculated the mean cost and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per month and revealed that most economic treatment is Homeopathic, which is then followed by the Herbal, Combination, and Allopathic (Table-2).

Table 1 Cost minimization analysis (CMA)
Full size table
Table 2 Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA)
Full size table

Mean direct cost of Homeopathic (Table-3) and Herbal treatments (Table-4) were found less than 20,000 PKR (122.61 USD) [18] annually compared to Combination (Table-5) and Allopathic treatments (Table-6). Mean indirect cost per physician per visit of Homeopathic, Herbal and Combination treatments were found less than 500 PKR (3.07 USD) except Allopathic treatment [18]. Annual expenses on medicines were found highest in Combination and Allopathic treatments i.e. 22400.72 PKR (137.33 USD) [18] and 21635.62 PKR (132.64 USD) [18] respectively.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics homeopathic Tx**
Full size table
Table 4 Descriptive statistics herbal Tx**
Full size table
Table 5 Descriptive statistics Combination Tx**
Full size table
Table 6 Descriptive statistics allopathic Tx**
Full size table

The most frequently prescribed medications in Allopathic medicine are metformin (56%), metformin + spironolactone (21%), metformin + orlistat (5%), atenolol + metformin (4%) and metformin + letrozole (2%) and letrozole + spironolactone (2%). In Homeopathic medicine the order of frequency were bioplasgen 15 (12%), sepia + thuja (10%), pulsatilla + thuja (10%), sepia (7%), pulsatilla (7%), calcarea carb + pulsatilla (7%), calcarea carb + thuja (7%), pulsatilla + sepia (5%), natrum mur + pulsatilla (5%), graphite + thuja (5%). Similarly in Herbal medicine the order of frequency was masturin (14%), masturin + suparipak (10%), vitex (10%, Khatooni (6%), khatoni + majun muhazzil (6%), majun dabeed-ul-ward + masturin (6%), masturin + majun muhazzil (6%), khatoni_suparipak (4%) and majun muqul + masturin + sharbat folad (4%). Some patients were prescribed combination of medicines from herbal, homeopathic and herbal systems. More than half (55%) patients were prescribed combination medicine of Allopathic + Herbal; while 27% Allopathic + Homeopathic and 18% Herbal + Homeopathic.

Sensitivity analysis (Figure-1) of ICER in cost-effectiveness and decision tree are further validate the findings (Figure-2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

2-Way sensitivity analysis of the parameters

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Decision tree with per month cost

Full size image

Discussion

It is a bleak reality that many patients belong to low socioeconomic class or patients living in poverty seek additional complementary medicine for treatments of their diseases [19, 20]. The cost effectiveness of alternative treatment and its reimbursement by health insurance companies are part of ongoing debates. Pakistan is a country, where the poverty rate is very high due to the high inflation rate i.e. 10.58% (5.5% increase from 2018) [21] and lower GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita (1,285 USD) [22]. Decline of Pakistani currency was noted by 13.33% since 2018 [18]. Moreover, PCOS has history of augmentation of economic burden of disease since past years [8]. For evaluation of cost for treatment, there are many tools used in Pharmacoeconomics such as; cost minimization analysis, cost benefit analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, cost utility analysis, and budget impact analysis [17].

Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) is a method of economic evaluation that chooses the least expensive alternative while the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an important tool that compares interventions along with two separate dimensions; costs and effectiveness [17]. In cost minimization analysis, the expenditure on PCOS treatment calculated in terms of incremental cost per month. The incremental cost per month of Allopathic, Herbal and combination treatment were found 358%, 56% and 187% respectively; higher than Homeopathic treatment. In the cost effectiveness analysis, the Homeopathic ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) per month value is considered as a standard or threshold value and compared with the ICER values of other treatments to determine whether these interventions are cost-effective [23]. The substantially higher values of ICER per month of Allopathic, Herbal and combination treatments are PKR: 1334.24 (USD: 8.18), PKR: 936.41 (USD: 5.74) and PKR: 1017.09 (USD: 6.24) respectively [18]; which demonstrates, they are less cost effective than the Homeopathic treatment. Contrary to findings of current study, mixed type of literature is available about economy of Homoeopathic system. Some economic evaluations have shown homeopathy is a more expensive treatment system [24]; yet there are also many studies supporting the evidences that Homeopathy offers a cost-saving alternative treatment [25]. The 2-way sensitivity analysis revealed in current study that Homeopathy is most cost-effective compare to Allopathic and other systems of treatment after adjusting the 5% discount rate. The decision tree was further validated this finding. In a retrospective observational study conducted on patients suffering from chronic respiratory disease, the costs for Homeopathic therapy were found significantly (42.4%) lower than the conventional pharmacological therapy [26]. Another study revealed, the treatment with the Homeopathic was found overall 35% less cost than Allopathic treatment [27]. Herbal treatment with values of 56% incremental cost and ICER PKR: 936.41 (USD: 5.74) per month does not justify cost-effectiveness among compared treatments; however, still it is 1.42 times cheaper than the conventional mode of treatments. Nevertheless; Ahmed et al. performed few extensive pharmacoeconomic studies and compared the Herbal and conventional mode of treatments for common ailments like common cold, depression and trauma; his conclusion is that the herbal treatment is a cost-effective therapy [9, 28]. Regarding frequency of prescription of patients, 27% taken combination of Allopathic and Homeopathic treatments, 55% combination of Allopathic and Herbal treatments, 18% combination of Herbal and Homeopathic treatments. The combination treatment’s larger value of incremental cost and ICER were making it more expensive treatment than Homeopathic and Herbal therapies but less costly than Allopathic treatment. (Table-1-2)

The mean direct cost of any therapy has eminent effect on the total treatment cost [29]. Due to this reason current study found that per year mean direct cost of Allopathic treatment is PKR:53751.87 ± 4211.42 (USD:329.52 ± 25.82); which was higher than Homeopathic, Herbal and combination therapies i.e. PKR:19803.42 ± 1420.56 (USD:121.40 ± 8.71), PKR:18333.41 ± 937.84 (USD:112.39 ± 5.75), PKR:33637.09 ± 7850.73 (USD:206.21 ± 48.12) respectively [18]. As a major constituent of direct cost, the cost of medicine takes an oversized proportion of the NHS (National Health Services) budget [30]. It’s a general perception that the medicines alone accounts for at least 10% of expenses [9]. The study found that the annual cost burden for combination medications is highest i.e. PKR:22400.72 ± 7819.13 (USD: 137.33 ± 47.93), while such burden is lowest with Homeopathic treatment i.e. PKR: 4889.14 ± 407.77 (USD:29.97 ± 2.50). Mean cost of Allopathic medicines per month i.e. PKR:1802.96 ± 346.08 (USD:11.05 ± 2.12) seems to be greatly influenced by most commonly prescribed drug metformin. Main drugs which cost in Allopathic therapy includes; metformin, combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs), spironolactone, clomiphene citrate, antiandrogens, aromatase inhibitors and local treatments for hirsutism and acne [31]. Metformin has been used by 56% of Allopathic enrolled patients. Spironolactone is not a cheap medicine but prescribed commonly for hirsutism [32]. Despite such findings that more than half of the Allopathic enrolled patients are on Metformin which is a low-priced and easily affordable medicine; ICER per month/year of Allopathic treatment is noticeably highest than the other treatments. However, in the field of economical evaluation of any treatment there are possibilities that medicine can be costlier but provide more utility to a patient with a certain disease [9]. In Homeopathic; 12% of PCOS patients used Bioplasgen-15, 7% used Pulsatilla pratensis, 7% used Sepia officinalis, 2% used Natrum muriaticum and 2% used Thuja occidentalis alone. 70% patients used the combination of two or more of the Homeopathic medicines. Dewan et al., also mentioned frequent use of above-mentioned Homeopathic medicines [31]. Mean cost of Homeopathic medicines per month is PKR:274.57 ± 37.62 (USD:1.68 ± 0.23), which is fairly lower than the mean cost of Herbal medicines as well as Allopathic or conventional medicines. Rossi et al. and Colas et al. stated that the Homeopathic prescriptions are two times less costly than the conventional medicines [30].

In Herbal system of medicine; several herbs can be used individually or in combination to relieve risk factors associated with PCOS. Few herbs when given in a combination produced a synergistic effect. The pharmacological action is seen more in combination than as single entity [33]. In this survey; Herbal products or combination of herbs are Femirin syrup, Herbal tea, Khatooni syrup, Majoon Dabeed-ul-Ward, Majun muhazzil, Majun muqil, Marhaba anti acne herbal cream, Masturin, Mensofar, Safi syrup, Sharbat folad, Suparipak. Only three of the Herbal products have single herb ingredient such as Ovuline capsules, Macca root capsules and Vitex capsules. 64% of patients received treatment with combination of herbal products. The potential benefits of Herbal medicines lie in their efficacy and relatively low costs [34]. Mean cost of Herbal medicine per month was found PKR:808.17 ± 62.59 (USD:4.95 ± 0.38); which is lower than Allopathic treatment but higher than Homeopathic treatment. In combination therapy; the cost of medicines were found higher i.e. PKR:1866.72 ± 651.59 (USD:11.44 ± 3.99) than all other therapies including Allopathic but interestingly the ICER per month/year is lower than Allopathic treatment; which is a usual finding of another pharmaco-economic study [9]. Another constituent of mean direct cost is the physician consultation. The mean cost of physician consultation per month were found highest in the Allopathic treatment [PKR:803.03 ± 33.11 (USD:4.92 ± 0.20)] and in the Combination treatment [PKR:690.90 ± 99.50 (USD:4.24 ± 0.61). According to another literature the consultation fee of alternative treatment was found higher than general treatment i.e. EUR:22.68 v/s 27.08 respectively (p < 0.0001) [27]. Indirect costs are those that are not directly influencing the total therapy cost and are hard to be tracked [29]. The indirect cost in current study comprised of travelling cost. It was found that the mean traveling cost of Allopathic treatment was highest [PKR:593.33 ± 24.00 (USD:3.64 ± 0.15)] compared to all other treatments. (Table-3-6) The duration of treatment also influence the total cost of treatment and can be used as measure of performance indicator. The mean duration of treatment of conventional and unconventional therapies are found at great difference in this study [35]. In the Herbal therapy, the mean duration of treatment is shortest i.e. 0.59 years while longest duration is pertaining to Allopathic treatment i.e. 2.63 years (Table-2).

Conclusion

Lowest direct and indirect costs and short treatment duration collaboratively lessen the %incremental cost per year and incremental cost effectiveness ratio per year. The most cost-effective treatment is Homeopathic; Herbal treatment is second most cost-effective option for the treatment of PCOS. Regardless of type of disease, any intervention that claims to improve health outcomes often causes a considerable cost to the healthcare system and to the patients [17]. In many countries, such economic evidences are increasingly used to regulate important healthcare decision making [36]. The main limitation of current study is the difference of number of participants in each treatment arm; however, study may provide a base for future studies on the topics of pharmaco-economics.

Data availability

Data are available on reasonable request through corresponding author of manuscript.

Abbreviations

PCOS:

Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome

SPSS:

Statistical Package Of Social Sciences

CMA:

Cost Minimization Analysis

PKR:

Pak Rupess

USD:

United Stated Dollar

CEA:

Cost Effectiveness Analysis

GBP:

Great Britis Pound

CAM:

Complementary And Alternative Medicine

CET-PCOS:

Comparative Effectiveness Of Treatment For Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome

IBC:

Institutional Bioethics Committee

ASRB:

Advanced Studies And Research Board

Tx:

Treatment

GDP:

Gross Domestic Product

ICER:

Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio

NHS:

National Health Services

COCPs:

Combined Oral Contraceptive Pills

EUR:

Euro

References

  1. Ganie MA, Rashid A, Sahu D, Nisar S, Wani IA, Khan J. Prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) among reproductive age women from Kashmir valley: a cross-sectional study. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2020;149(2):231–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ding T, Hardiman PJ, Petersen I, Baio G. Incidence and prevalence of diabetes and cost of illness analysis of polycystic ovary syndrome: a bayesian modelling study. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(7):1299–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Azziz R, Marin C, Hoq L, Badamgarav E, Song P. Health care-related economic burden of the polycystic ovary syndrome during the reproductive life span. J Clin Endocrinol Metabolism. 2005;90(8):4650–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Harris HR, Terry KL. Polycystic ovary syndrome and risk of endometrial, ovarian, and breast cancer: a systematic review. Fertil Res Pract. 2016;2:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Masroor D, Khaliq SA, Azhar I, Ahmad SM. Development and Validation of Questionnaire to compare treatment options of polycystic ovarian syndrome. J Int Res Med Pharm Sci. 2020;15(1):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kennedy DA, Lupattelli A, Gideon K, Nordeng H. Herbal medicine use in pregnancy: results of a multinational study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2013;113(355):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rodriguez-Paris D, Remlinger-Molenda A, Kurzawa R, Głowińska A, Spaczyński R, Rybakowski F, et al. Psychiatric disorders in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Psychiatr Pol. 2019;53(4):953–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Riestenberg C, Jagasia A, Markovic D, Buyalos RP, Azziz R. Health care-related economic burden of polycystic ovary syndrome in the United States: pregnancy-related and long-term health consequences. J Clin Endocrinol Metabolism. 2022;107(2):575–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahmad SM, Azhar I, Masroor D, Ahmed N. Comparative study between allopathic and herbal therapies of common cold, depression and trauma in the city of Karachi: a cost utility and relationship analysis. Pak J Sci. 2018;70(1):30–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. van de Loo RJE, Mechtenberg E, Huebner J, Keinki C. Complementary and alternative medicine in cancer - A qualitative study on the internet offer in spanish-speaking South America. Complement Ther Med. 2020;48:102238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shaikh SH, Malik F, James H, Abdul H. Trends in the Use of complementary and alternative medicine in Pakistan: a Population-based survey. J Altern Complement Med. 2009;15(5):545–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shaikh BT, Hatcher J. Complementary and alternative medicine in Pakistan: prospects and limitations. Evidence-Based Complement Altern Med. 2005;2(2):139–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huebner J, Prott FJ, Muecke R, Stoll C, Buentzel J, Muenstedt K, et al. Economic evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine in oncology is there a difference compared to conventional medicine. Med Principles Pract. 2017;26(1):41–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aparasu RR. Sampling methods; chap. 107. Research methods for pharmaceutical practice and policy. 1. First ed. United Kingdom: Pharmaceutical; 2016. pp. 107–24.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Escobar-Morreale HF. Polycystic ovary syndrome: definition, aetiology, diagnosis and treatment. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(5):270–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shrestha B, Dunn L. The declaration of Helsinki on Medical Research involving human subjects: a review of Seventh Revision. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2019;17(45):548–52.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shih YCT, Halpern MT. Economic evaluations of Medical Care interventions for Cancer patients: how, why, and what does it Mean? Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(4):231–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. XE. xe.com Powering you [English]. USA2019 [30 March 2022]. Euronet Worldwide (NASDAQ: EEFT) family, who are recognized as formidable leaders in currency exchange. https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=9215&From=USD&To=PKR

  19. Kass B, Icke K, Witt CM, Reinhold T. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment with additional enrollment to a homeopathic integrated care contract in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):872.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hughes GD, Aboyade OM, Okonji OC, Clark B, Bawa WA, Xavier C, et al. Cost of Traditional Herbal Medicines for Noncommunicable Diseases in Rural and Urban communities in South Africa. Value Health Reg Issues. 2021;29:66–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. MacroTrends. Pakistan Inflation Rate 1960–2019: MacroTrends; 2022 [updated 2022. 1st:[Inflation as measured by the consumer price index reflects the annual percentage change in the cost to the average consumer of acquiring a basket of goods and services that may be fixed or changed at specified intervals, such as yearly]. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/PAK/pakistan/inflation-rate-cpi

  22. MacroTrends. Pakistan GDPPC. 1960–2019: MacroTrends; 2022 [updated 2022. 1st:[GDP per capita is gross domestic product divided by midyear population. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources.]. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/PAK/pakistan/inflation-rate-cpi

  23. Shih YCT, Halpern MT. Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why, and what does it mean? CA: a cancer journal for clinicians,. 2008;58(4):231–44.

  24. Ostermann JK, Witt CM, Reinhold T. A retrospective cost-analysis of additional homeopathic treatment in Germany: long-term economic outcomes. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(9):e0182897.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ostermann JK, Reinhold T, Witt CM. Can additional homeopathic treatment save costs? A retrospective cost-analysis based on 44500 insured persons. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0134657.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Rossi E, Crudeli L, Endrizzi C, Garibaldi D. Cost-benefit evaluation of homeopathic versus conventional therapy in respiratory diseases. Homeopathy. 2009;98(1):2–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Colas A, Danno K, Tabar C, Ehreth J, Duru G. Economic impact of homeopathic practice in general medicine in France. Health Econ Rev. 2015;5(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmad SM, Masroor D, Azhar I, Ahmed N. Retrospective cost-utility and budget impact assessments of Hypericum perforatum in contrast with fluoxetine treatment for depression in Karachi, Pakistan. Brazilian J Pharm Sci. 2019;55:1–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ahmad SM, Azhar I, Masroor D, Ahmed N. Preference of Herbal therapies: cost of illness and Cost Benefit Analysis for Major Diseases in the City of Karachi, Pakistan. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2019;81(5):885–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jain A. Does homeopathy reduce the cost of conventional drug prescribing? Homeopathy. 2003;92(02):71–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dewan D, Sharma RS, Nim PN, Singh SS. Homoeopathy a system of holistic Healing as an alternative treatment for PCOS–a review. Int J High Dilution Res 2021;20(4).

  32. Witchel SF, Oberfield SE, Pena AS. Polycystic ovary syndrome: pathophysiology, presentation, and treatment with emphasis on adolescent girls. J Endocr Soc. 2019;3(8):1545–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Wal A, Wal P, Saraswat N, Wadhwa S. A detailed review on herbal treatments for treatment of PCOS-Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Curr Nutraceuticals. 2021;2(3):192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ernst E. Cost evaluation of herbal medicine. J Herb Pharmacother. 2003;3(4):55–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. De Beurs E, Warmerdam EH, Oudejans SCC, Spits M, Dingemanse P, De Graaf SDD, et al. Treatment outcome, duration, and costs: a comparison of performance indicators using data from eight mental health care providers in the Netherlands. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2018;45(2):212–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Canaway A, Frew E, Lancashire E, Pallan M, Hemming K, Adab P, et al. Economic evaluation of a childhood obesity prevention programme for children: results from the WAVES Cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in schools. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Karachi, Karachi, 75270, Pakistan

    Darakhshan Masroor, Farah Mazhar & Iqbal Azhar

  2. Department of Pharmacy Practice & Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Hamdard University, Karachi, 74600, Pakistan

    Sheikh Abdul Khaliq

  3. College of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA, 91766, USA

    Syed Muzzammil Ahmad

Authors
  1. Darakhshan Masroor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheikh Abdul Khaliq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Syed Muzzammil Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farah Mazhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Iqbal Azhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have read and approved the manuscript. Conceptualization and data curation: DM. Formal analysis and methodology: SAK. Validation and visualization: SMA. Writing – original draft: FM. Writing – review and editing: IA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheikh Abdul Khaliq.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The Institutional Bio-Ethical Committee (IBC) of University of Karachi approved the study design and methods (Reference Number: IBC-KU 50). Study is also approved by Advanced Studies & Research Board, University of Karachi (Reference Number: ASRB/No./04164/Pharm.). Prior to initiating the survey, a written informed consent was obtained from each patient after explaining the research and its objectives. All researchers ensured the maintenance of patient data confidentiality in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki [16].

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masroor, D., Khaliq, S.A., Ahmad, S.M. et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of treatments for Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS). Cost Eff Resour Alloc 22, 62 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00569-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00569-6

Keywords

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

ISSN: 1478-7547

Contact us