Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial

Autor: John A.F. Zupancic, David Millar, Wenyang Mao, J S Gaulton, Haresh Kirpalani, Meredith E. Mowitz, Dmitry Dukhovny, Robin S. Roberts
Rok vydání: 2016
Předmět:
Male
Pediatrics
medicine.medical_specialty
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Positive pressure
Context (language use)
Subgroup analysis
Gestational Age
Sensitivity and Specificity
Article
law.invention
Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
Randomized controlled trial
law
030225 pediatrics
Intensive Care Units
Neonatal
medicine
Humans
030212 general & internal medicine
Prospective Studies
Prospective cohort study
health care economics and organizations
Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Newborn
Noninvasive Ventilation
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
business.industry
Infant
Newborn
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Gestational age
Health Care Costs
Clinical trial
Pediatrics
Perinatology and Child Health
Economic evaluation
Female
business
Infant
Premature
Zdroj: Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association. 37(1)
ISSN: 1476-5543
Popis: 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.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: