Cost‐effectiveness of nasal high‐flow in children with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

Abstract

AimA pilot randomised controlled trial assessed the early application of nasal high‐flow (NHF) therapy compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT), in children aged 0 to 16 years presenting to paediatric emergency departments with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF). The study estimated the need to escalate therapy and hospital length of stay in the NHF group compared with SOT. This sub‐study then assessed the subsequent cost‐effectiveness.MethodsA decision tree‐based model was developed, alongside the clinical study, to estimate cost‐effectiveness, from the healthcare sector perspective. The primary health economics outcome is measured as incremental cost per length of hospital stay avoided. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) measuring change in cost per change in length of stay, were obtained for four samples, depending on responder status and obstructive airways disease. These were (1) obstructive and responder, (2) non‐obstructive and responder, (3) obstructive and non‐responder and (4) non obstructive and non‐responder. Bootstrapping of parameters accounted for uncertainty in estimates of cost and outcome.ResultsThe ICER for patients randomised to NHF, indicated an additional A$367.20 for a lower hospital length of stay (in days) in the non‐obstructive/non‐responder sample. In the bootstrap sample, this was found to be cost effective above a willingness to pay threshold of A$10 000. The ICER was A$440.86 in the obstructive/responder sample and A$469.56 in the non‐obstructive/responder sample – but both resulted in a longer length of stay. The ICER in the obstructive/non‐responder sample was A$52 167.76, also with a longer length of stay, mainly impacted by a small sample of severe cases.ConclusionAs first‐line treatment, NHF is unlikely to be cost‐effective compared with SOT, but for non‐obstructive patients who required escalation in care (non‐obstructive non‐responder), NHF is likely to be cost‐effective if willingness‐to‐pay per reduced hospital length of stay is more than A$10 000 per patient.