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.Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 29 September 2016; doi:10.1038/jp.2016.159.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
- Obstetrics and Gynecology