M E Mowitz1, J A F Zupancic2,3,4, D Millar5, H Kirpalani6,7, J S Gaulton4, R S Roberts6,7, W Mao3, D Dukhovny3,8. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Neonatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, UK. 6. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of nasal continuous positive pressure (nCPAP) compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in the context of the reported randomized clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Using patient-level data from the clinical trial, we undertook a prospectively planned economic evaluation. We measured costs, from a third-party payer perspective in all patients, and from a societal perspective in a subgroup with a time horizon through the earlier of discharge, death or 44 weeks post-menstrual age. RESULTS: From the third-party payer perspective, the mean cost of hospitalization per infant was statistically similar, $143 745 in the NIPPV group compared to $140 403 in the nCPAP group. Cost-effectiveness evaluation revealed a 61% probability that NIPPV is more expensive and less effective than nCPAP. Similar results were found in subgroup analysis from a societal perspective. CONCLUSION: In addition to being clinically equivalent, economic evaluation confirms that NIPPV, as employed in this trial, is also not economically favorable.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of nasal continuous positive pressure (nCPAP) compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in the context of the reported randomized clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Using patient-level data from the clinical trial, we undertook a prospectively planned economic evaluation. We measured costs, from a third-party payer perspective in all patients, and from a societal perspective in a subgroup with a time horizon through the earlier of discharge, death or 44 weeks post-menstrual age. RESULTS: From the third-party payer perspective, the mean cost of hospitalization per infant was statistically similar, $143 745 in the NIPPV group compared to $140 403 in the nCPAP group. Cost-effectiveness evaluation revealed a 61% probability that NIPPV is more expensive and less effective than nCPAP. Similar results were found in subgroup analysis from a societal perspective. CONCLUSION: In addition to being clinically equivalent, economic evaluation confirms that NIPPV, as employed in this trial, is also not economically favorable.
Authors: Michael S Dunn; Joseph Kaempf; Alan de Klerk; Rose de Klerk; Maureen Reilly; Diantha Howard; Karla Ferrelli; Jeanette O'Conor; Roger F Soll Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Haresh Kirpalani; David Millar; Brigitte Lemyre; Bradley A Yoder; Aaron Chiu; Robin S Roberts Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timmy Ho; Dmitry Dukhovny; John A F Zupancic; Don A Goldmann; Jeffrey D Horbar; DeWayne M Pursley Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Dmitry Dukhovny; Scott A Lorch; Barbara Schmidt; Lex W Doyle; Joke H Kok; Robin S Roberts; Karen L Kamholz; Na Wang; Wenyang Mao; John A F Zupancic Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Neil N Finer; Waldemar A Carlo; Michele C Walsh; Wade Rich; Marie G Gantz; Abbot R Laptook; Bradley A Yoder; Roger G Faix; Abhik Das; W Kenneth Poole; Edward F Donovan; Nancy S Newman; Namasivayam Ambalavanan; Ivan D Frantz; Susie Buchter; Pablo J Sánchez; Kathleen A Kennedy; Nirupama Laroia; Brenda B Poindexter; C Michael Cotten; Krisa P Van Meurs; Shahnaz Duara; Vivek Narendran; Beena G Sood; T Michael O'Shea; Edward F Bell; Vineet Bhandari; Kristi L Watterberg; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman; John A F Zupancic; Grecio Sandoval; William A Grobman; Sean C Blackwell; Alan T N Tita; Uma M Reddy; Lucky Jain; George R Saade; Dwight J Rouse; Jay D Iams; Erin A S Clark; John M Thorp; Edward K Chien; Alan M Peaceman; Ronald S Gibbs; Geeta K Swamy; Mary E Norton; Brian M Casey; Steve N Caritis; Jorge E Tolosa; Yoram Sorokin; J Peter VanDorsten Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 16.193