Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nasal CPAP Versus High-FLOW Therapy As Primary Support for Newborn Infants in Special Care Nurseries
Author(s)
Huang L1, Manley BJ2, Buckmaster AG3, Dalziel K4
1The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 3Gosford Central Coast Local Health District, Gosford, NSW, Australia, 4The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia
OBJECTIVES: Treating respiratory distress in newborn infants is expensive. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of two common non-invasive therapies, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and nasal high-flow (nHF), for newborns cared for in non-tertiary special care nurseries. METHODS: The economic evaluation was prospectively planned alongside a randomized control trial conducted in nine Australian non-tertiary special care nurseries all of whom are proficient at using CPAP. 754 newborn infants with respiratory distress, born ≥31 weeks’ gestation and with birth weight ≥1200 g, <24 hours old, requiring non-invasive respiratory support and/or supplemental oxygen for >1 hour were recruited during 2015-2017. Costs were considered from a healthcare sector perspective comprising costs of inpatient stay and inter-hospital transfers, and the time horizon was the first 12 months of age. Hospital inpatient cost records were obtained for 753 infants of whom 676 were included in the per-protocol analysis. Effectiveness outcomes included rate of endotracheal intubation and transfer to a tertiary-level neonatal intensive care unit. The cost-effectiveness of CPAP versus nHF was analyzed using patient-level data under two scenaris: (i) CPAP versus nHF with infants randomized to nHF having ‘rescue’ CPAP back-up available (trial scenario); (ii) CPAP versus nHF with CPAP and nHF as sole primary support (hypothetical scenario). RESULTS: As sole primary support, CPAP is more effective and on average cheaper and thus is the superior strategy. However, nHF with back-up CPAP produced equivalent cost and effectiveness results, and there is no reason to make a decision between the two treatment algorithms based on the cost or effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on cost-effectiveness evidence from this study, non-tertiary special care nurseries choosing to use only one of the modes as primary respiratory support should choose CPAP. Using nHF as first-line therapy may be acceptable for units with both devices available when nHF has back-up CPAP.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2020-11, ISPOR Europe 2020, Milan, Italy
Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue S2 (December 2020)
Code
PRS10
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Service Delivery & Process of Care
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Hospital and Clinical Practices
Disease
Respiratory-Related Disorders