Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial

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.