Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial

M. E. Mowitz, J. A F Zupancic, D. Millar, H. Kirpalani, J. S. Gaulton, R. S. Roberts, W. Mao, Dmitry Dukhovny

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

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.Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 29 September 2016; doi:10.1038/jp.2016.159.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Perinatology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Sep 29 2016

Fingerprint

Noninvasive Ventilation
Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation
Nose
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Health Insurance Reimbursement
Perinatology
Costs and Cost Analysis
Publications
Hospitalization
Randomized Controlled Trials
Clinical Trials
Pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Mowitz, M. E., Zupancic, J. A. F., Millar, D., Kirpalani, H., Gaulton, J. S., Roberts, R. S., ... Dukhovny, D. (Accepted/In press). Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial. Journal of Perinatology. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.159

Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial. / Mowitz, M. E.; Zupancic, J. A F; Millar, D.; Kirpalani, H.; Gaulton, J. S.; Roberts, R. S.; Mao, W.; Dukhovny, Dmitry.

In: Journal of Perinatology, 29.09.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mowitz ME, Zupancic JAF, Millar D, Kirpalani H, Gaulton JS, Roberts RS et al. Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial. Journal of Perinatology. 2016 Sep 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.159
Mowitz, M. E. ; Zupancic, J. A F ; Millar, D. ; Kirpalani, H. ; Gaulton, J. S. ; Roberts, R. S. ; Mao, W. ; Dukhovny, Dmitry. / Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial. In: Journal of Perinatology. 2016.
@article{6c8c309c443a4ec898002c58b23228fc,
title = "Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial",
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.Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 29 September 2016; doi:10.1038/jp.2016.159.",
author = "Mowitz, {M. E.} and Zupancic, {J. A F} and D. Millar and H. Kirpalani and Gaulton, {J. S.} and Roberts, {R. S.} and W. Mao and Dmitry Dukhovny",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1038/jp.2016.159",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Perinatology",
issn = "0743-8346",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial

AU - Mowitz, M. E.

AU - Zupancic, J. A F

AU - Millar, D.

AU - Kirpalani, H.

AU - Gaulton, J. S.

AU - Roberts, R. S.

AU - Mao, W.

AU - Dukhovny, Dmitry

PY - 2016/9/29

Y1 - 2016/9/29

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989243720&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84989243720&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/jp.2016.159

DO - 10.1038/jp.2016.159

M3 - Article

C2 - 27684419

AN - SCOPUS:84989243720

JO - Journal of Perinatology

JF - Journal of Perinatology

SN - 0743-8346

ER -