The cost-utility of early use of high-flow nasal cannula in bronchiolitis.
Asthma
Cannula
Health economics
Healthcare
Oxygen
Public health
Journal
Health economics review
ISSN: 2191-1991
Titre abrégé: Health Econ Rev
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101583209
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Oct 2021
28 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
03
05
2021
accepted:
20
09
2021
entrez:
28
10
2021
pubmed:
29
10
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is a non-invasive ventilation system that was introduced as an alternative to CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), with a marked increase in its use in pediatric care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early use of HFNC compared to oxygen by nasal cannula in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with oxygen by nasal cannula (control strategy) in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. Cost data were obtained from a retrospective study on bronchiolitis from tertiary centers in Rionegro, Colombia, while utilities were collected from the literature. The QALYs per patient calculated in the base-case model were 0.9141 (95% CI 0.913-0.915) in the HFNC and 0.9105 (95% CI 0.910-0.911) in control group. The cost per patient was US$368 (95% CI US$ 323-411) in HFNC and US$441 (95% CI US$ 384-498) per patient in the control group. HFNC was cost-effective HFNC compared to oxygen by nasal cannula in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. The use of this technology in emergency settings will allow a more efficient use of resources, especially in low-resource countries with high prevalence of bronchiolitis .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is a non-invasive ventilation system that was introduced as an alternative to CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), with a marked increase in its use in pediatric care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early use of HFNC compared to oxygen by nasal cannula in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting.
METHODS
METHODS
A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with oxygen by nasal cannula (control strategy) in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. Cost data were obtained from a retrospective study on bronchiolitis from tertiary centers in Rionegro, Colombia, while utilities were collected from the literature.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The QALYs per patient calculated in the base-case model were 0.9141 (95% CI 0.913-0.915) in the HFNC and 0.9105 (95% CI 0.910-0.911) in control group. The cost per patient was US$368 (95% CI US$ 323-411) in HFNC and US$441 (95% CI US$ 384-498) per patient in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
HFNC was cost-effective HFNC compared to oxygen by nasal cannula in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. The use of this technology in emergency settings will allow a more efficient use of resources, especially in low-resource countries with high prevalence of bronchiolitis .
Identifiants
pubmed: 34709481
doi: 10.1186/s13561-021-00339-7
pii: 10.1186/s13561-021-00339-7
pmc: PMC8555170
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
41Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2020 Jan - Feb;48(1):56-61
pubmed: 31235183
Value Health. 2019 Nov;22(11):1329-1344
pubmed: 31708071
Lancet. 2017 Mar 4;389(10072):930-939
pubmed: 28161016
Pharmacoecon Open. 2021 Mar;5(1):71-76
pubmed: 32418086
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Dec;15(12):929-935
pubmed: 30426800
J Pediatr (Rio J). 2013 Nov-Dec;89(6):544-8
pubmed: 24029550
N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 22;378(12):1121-1131
pubmed: 29562151
Pediatr Pulmonol. 2018 May;53(5):664-667
pubmed: 29461021
Eur J Pediatr. 2020 May;179(5):711-718
pubmed: 32232547
J Pediatr (Rio J). 2017 Nov - Dec;93 Suppl 1:36-45
pubmed: 28818509
Eur J Pediatr. 2018 Jan;177(1):133-144
pubmed: 29168012
Pediatr Emerg Med Pract. 2019 Oct;16(10):1-24
pubmed: 31557431
J Investig Med. 2018 Aug;66(6):986-991
pubmed: 29588331
Respir Care. 2016 Oct;61(10):1299-304
pubmed: 27460101
J Paediatr Child Health. 2012 Jan;48(1):16-21
pubmed: 21988616
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Jul 12;24:93
pubmed: 27405336
Eur J Pediatr. 2020 Mar;179(3):513-518
pubmed: 31828528
S Afr Med J. 2019 Mar 29;109(4):272-277
pubmed: 31084694
J Trop Pediatr. 1994 Dec;40(6):341-4
pubmed: 7853438
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 May 1;187(9):983-90
pubmed: 23449690
Biomedica. 2012 Oct-Dec;32(4):578-84
pubmed: 23715233
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2019;51(1):51-55
pubmed: 31280552
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Oct 17;17(1):687
pubmed: 29041909
BMJ. 2013 Mar 25;346:f1049
pubmed: 23529982
Int J Qual Health Care. 2005 Feb;17(1):23-30
pubmed: 15668307
Eur J Health Econ. 2010 Feb;11(1):105-15
pubmed: 19967425
Med Decis Making. 1998 Jan-Mar;18(1):95-109
pubmed: 9456214
Arch Dis Child. 2004 Jul;89(7):673-8
pubmed: 15210503
Cureus. 2018 Nov 26;10(11):e3639
pubmed: 30740281
Pediatrics. 2006 Nov;118(5):2101-8
pubmed: 17079584
Eur J Pediatr. 2018 Aug;177(8):1299-1307
pubmed: 29915869
Vaccine. 2012 Jun 29;30(31):4691-700
pubmed: 22561315
Arch Argent Pediatr. 2019 Oct 1;117(5):286-293
pubmed: 31560483