Cost-Effectiveness of Nasal High Flow Versus CPAP for Newborn Infants in Special-Care Nurseries.

BACKGROUND: Treating respiratory distress in newborns is expensive. We compared the cost-effectiveness of 2 common noninvasive therapies, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and nasal high-flow (nHF), for newborn infants cared for in nontertiary special care nurseries. METHODS: The economic evaluation was planned alongside a randomized control trial conducted in 9 Australian special care nurseries. Costs were considered from a hospital perspective until infants were 12 months of age. A total of 754 infants with respiratory distress, born ≥31 weeks' gestation and with birth weight ≥1200 g, <24 hours old, requiring noninvasive respiratory support and/or supplemental oxygen for >1 hour were recruited during 2015-2017. Inpatient costing records were obtained for 753 infants, of whom 676 were included in the per-protocol analysis. Two scenarios were considered: (1) CPAP versus nHF, with infants in the nHF group having "rescue" CPAP backup available (trial scenario); and (2) CPAP versus nHF, as sole primary support (hypothetical scenario). Effectiveness outcomes were rate of endotracheal intubation and transfer to a tertiary-level NICU. RESULTS: As sole primary support, CPAP is more effective and on average cheaper, and thus is superior. However, nHF with back-up CPAP produced equivalent cost and effectiveness results, and there is no reason to make a decision between the 2 treatments on the basis of the cost or effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Nontertiary special care nurseries choosing to use only 1 of the modes should choose CPAP. In units with both modes available, using nHF as first-line therapy may be acceptable if there is back-up CPAP.

Observational study of parental opinion of deferred consent for neonatal research.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the opinions of parents of newborns following their infant's enrolment into a neonatal research study through the process of deferred consent. DESIGN: Mixed-methods, observational study, interviewing 100 parents recently approached for deferred consent. SETTING: Tertiary-level neonatal intensive care unit, Melbourne, Australia. RESULTS: All 100 parents interviewed had consented to the study/studies using deferred consent; 62% had also experienced a prospective neonatal consent process. Eighty-nine per cent were 'satisfied' with the deferred consent process. The most common reason given for consenting was 'to help future babies'. Negative comments regarding deferred consent mostly related to the timing of the consent approach, and some related to a perceived loss of parental rights. A deferred approach was preferred by 51%, 24% preferred a prospective approach and 25% were unsure. Those who thought prospective consent would not have been preferable cited impaired decision-making, inappropriate timing of an approach before birth and their preference for removal of the decision-making burden via deferred consent. Seventy-seven per cent thought they would have given the same response if approached prospectively; those who would have declined reported that a prospective approach under stressful conditions was unwelcome and too overwhelming. CONCLUSION: In our sample, 89% of parents of infants enrolled in neonatal research using deferred consent considered it acceptable and half would not have preferred prospective consent. The ability to make a more considered decision under less stressful circumstances was key to the acceptability of deferred consent.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Versus Nasal High Flow Therapy as Primary Support for Infants Born Preterm.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 common "noninvasive" modes of respiratory support for infants born preterm. STUDY DESIGN: An economic evaluation was conducted as a component of a multicenter, randomized control trial from 2013 to 2015 enrolling infants born preterm at ≥28 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress, <24 hours old, who had not previously received endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation or surfactant. The economic evaluation was conducted from a healthcare sector perspective and the time horizon was from birth until death or first discharge. The cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs high-flow with "rescue" CPAP backup and high-flow without rescue CPAP backup (as sole primary support) were analyzed by using the hospital cost of inpatient stay in a tertiary center and the rates of endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation during admission. RESULTS: Hospital inpatient cost records for 435 infants enrolled in all Australian centers were obtained. With "rescue" CPAP backup, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated of A$179 000 (US$123 000) per ventilation avoided if CPAP was used compared with high flow. Without rescue CPAP backup, cost per ventilation avoided was A$7000 (US$4800) if CPAP was used compared with high flow. CONCLUSIONS: As sole primary support, CPAP is highly likely to be cost-effective compared with high flow. Neonatal units choosing to use only one device should apply CPAP as primary respiratory support. Compared with high-flow with rescue CPAP backup, CPAP is unlikely to be cost-effective if willingness to pay per ventilation avoided is less than A$179 000 (US$123 000).