86 The only concern selleckbio that persists is a possible increased risk of hypospadias in male offspring exposed to exogenous progestins87,88; even if real, however, this risk is limited to exposure prior to 11 weeks of gestation and, as such, is not relevant to the current discussion. Economic Analyses of Progesterone Supplementation In light of the discussion above, the potential clinical benefits of progesterone supplementation appear large, whereas the risks seem small in comparison. A number of investigators have carried out formal economic analyses in an attempt to quantify the benefit.

These include: (i) cost-effectiveness analysis, which is designed to evaluate whether the cost of a given intervention is worth the clinical improvement that it generates, (ii) cost-utility analysis, a type of cost-effectiveness analysis in which the results are reported in quality-adjusted life years (QALY); a threshold of $50,000 to $100,000 per QALY is generally used to determine whether an intervention is cost effective; and (iii) cost-benefit analysis, which considers all of the outcomes in a more complex economic analysis. An intervention is deemed cost beneficial if it leads to overall financial savings. Thus, whereas the cost-benefit analysis of a given intervention is only positive if it saves money, a cost-effectiveness analysis is designed to determine whether the costs are worth the outcomes achieved. There have been several economic analyses of the use of 17P for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth.

In the cost-utility analysis by Odibo and colleagues,89 the authors report that the use of 17P is associated with both a reduction in cost and an improvement in perinatal outcome. Such a finding is called a dominant strategy. This was true when modeling for women with a prior preterm birth < 32 weeks of gestation and for women with a prior preterm birth at 32 to 37 weeks of gestation. In their cost-benefit analysis, Bailit and Votruba90 estimated the societal benefits of treating all women with a prior preterm birth with 17P at approximately $1.98 billion. However, if progesterone could prevent preterm birth in women at risk during their first pregnancy, the savings might be even larger.

In a recent cost-utility analysis, Cahill and colleagues91 found that a protocol of screening all women for cervical length and administering vaginal progesterone t
In 1935, Stein and Leventhal published a case series of seven women with amenorrhea, hirsutism, and bilateral polycystic ovaries, a condition that later came to be known as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).1 PCOS is now recognized as the most common endocrinopathy in reproductive-aged women (affecting 5%�C7%), with key features of menstrual irregularity, elevated androgens, and polycystic-appearing Batimastat ovaries. Since its original description in 1935, however, the definition of PCOS has undergone several revisions (Table 1).