The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation
Background: Respiratory problems are one of the most common causes of morbidity in preterm infants and may be treated with several modalities for respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. The heated humidified h...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
NIHR Journals Library
2016-04-01
|
Series: | Health Technology Assessment |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20300 |
id |
doaj-f63fed73085b44efa73cbd346b767849 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Nigel Fleeman James Mahon Vickie Bates Rumona Dickson Yenal Dundar Kerry Dwan Laura Ellis Eleanor Kotas Marty Richardson Prakesh Shah Ben NJ Shaw |
spellingShingle |
Nigel Fleeman James Mahon Vickie Bates Rumona Dickson Yenal Dundar Kerry Dwan Laura Ellis Eleanor Kotas Marty Richardson Prakesh Shah Ben NJ Shaw The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation Health Technology Assessment |
author_facet |
Nigel Fleeman James Mahon Vickie Bates Rumona Dickson Yenal Dundar Kerry Dwan Laura Ellis Eleanor Kotas Marty Richardson Prakesh Shah Ben NJ Shaw |
author_sort |
Nigel Fleeman |
title |
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation |
title_short |
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation |
title_full |
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation |
title_fullStr |
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation |
title_full_unstemmed |
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation |
title_sort |
clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation |
publisher |
NIHR Journals Library |
series |
Health Technology Assessment |
issn |
1366-5278 2046-4924 |
publishDate |
2016-04-01 |
description |
Background: Respiratory problems are one of the most common causes of morbidity in preterm infants and may be treated with several modalities for respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. The heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in clinical practice. Objectives: To address the clinical effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care for preterm infants we systematically reviewed the evidence of HHHFNC with usual care following ventilation (the primary analysis) and with no prior ventilation (the secondary analysis). The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as the need for reintubation (primary analysis) or intubation (secondary analysis). We also aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care if evidence permitted. Data sources: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (2000 to 12 January 2015), EMBASE (2000 to 12 January 2015), The Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2015), ISI Web of Science (2000 to 12 January 2015), PubMed (1 March 2014 to 12 January 2015) and seven trial and research registers. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, when possible, data were pooled. A meta-analysis was only conducted for the primary analysis, using fixed-effects models. An economic evaluation was planned. Results: Clinical evidence was derived from seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs): four RCTs for the primary analysis and three RCTs for the secondary analysis. Meta-analysis found that only for nasal trauma leading to a change of treatment was there a statistically significant difference, favouring HHHFNC over NCPAP [risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.42]. For the following outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between arms: treatment failure (reintubation < 7 days; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.17), death (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.44), pneumothorax (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.12), intraventricular haemorrhage (grade ≥ 3; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.15), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.14), apnoea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57) and acidosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.58). With no evidence to support the superiority of HHHFNC over NCPAP, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken, the results suggesting HHHFNC to be less costly than NCPAP. However, this finding is sensitive to the lifespan of equipment and the cost differential of consumables. Limitations: There is a lack of published RCTs of relatively large-sized populations comparing HHHFNC with usual care; this is particularly true for preterm infants who had received no prior ventilation. Conclusions: There is a lack of convincing evidence suggesting that HHHFNC is superior or inferior to usual care, in particular NCPAP. There is also uncertainty regarding whether or not HHHFNC can be considered cost-effective. Further evidence comparing HHHFNC with usual care is required. Study registration: This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015015978. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20300 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT nigelfleeman theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT jamesmahon theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT vickiebates theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT rumonadickson theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT yenaldundar theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT kerrydwan theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT lauraellis theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT eleanorkotas theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT martyrichardson theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT prakeshshah theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT bennjshaw theclinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT nigelfleeman clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT jamesmahon clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT vickiebates clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT rumonadickson clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT yenaldundar clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT kerrydwan clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT lauraellis clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT eleanorkotas clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT martyrichardson clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT prakeshshah clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation AT bennjshaw clinicaleffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofheatedhumidifiedhighflownasalcannulacomparedwithusualcareforpreterminfantssystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation |
_version_ |
1726010799148761088 |
spelling |
doaj-f63fed73085b44efa73cbd346b7678492020-11-24T21:18:00ZengNIHR Journals LibraryHealth Technology Assessment1366-52782046-49242016-04-01203010.3310/hta2030014/151/03The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluationNigel Fleeman0James Mahon1Vickie Bates2Rumona Dickson3Yenal Dundar4Kerry Dwan5Laura Ellis6Eleanor Kotas7Marty Richardson8Prakesh Shah9Ben NJ Shaw10Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKColdingham Analytical Services, Berwickshire, UKLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKPatient representative (parent of premature infants)Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKDepartments of Paediatrics and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, CanadaNeonatal Unit, Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UKBackground: Respiratory problems are one of the most common causes of morbidity in preterm infants and may be treated with several modalities for respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. The heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in clinical practice. Objectives: To address the clinical effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care for preterm infants we systematically reviewed the evidence of HHHFNC with usual care following ventilation (the primary analysis) and with no prior ventilation (the secondary analysis). The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as the need for reintubation (primary analysis) or intubation (secondary analysis). We also aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care if evidence permitted. Data sources: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (2000 to 12 January 2015), EMBASE (2000 to 12 January 2015), The Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2015), ISI Web of Science (2000 to 12 January 2015), PubMed (1 March 2014 to 12 January 2015) and seven trial and research registers. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, when possible, data were pooled. A meta-analysis was only conducted for the primary analysis, using fixed-effects models. An economic evaluation was planned. Results: Clinical evidence was derived from seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs): four RCTs for the primary analysis and three RCTs for the secondary analysis. Meta-analysis found that only for nasal trauma leading to a change of treatment was there a statistically significant difference, favouring HHHFNC over NCPAP [risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.42]. For the following outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between arms: treatment failure (reintubation < 7 days; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.17), death (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.44), pneumothorax (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.12), intraventricular haemorrhage (grade ≥ 3; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.15), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.14), apnoea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57) and acidosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.58). With no evidence to support the superiority of HHHFNC over NCPAP, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken, the results suggesting HHHFNC to be less costly than NCPAP. However, this finding is sensitive to the lifespan of equipment and the cost differential of consumables. Limitations: There is a lack of published RCTs of relatively large-sized populations comparing HHHFNC with usual care; this is particularly true for preterm infants who had received no prior ventilation. Conclusions: There is a lack of convincing evidence suggesting that HHHFNC is superior or inferior to usual care, in particular NCPAP. There is also uncertainty regarding whether or not HHHFNC can be considered cost-effective. Further evidence comparing HHHFNC with usual care is required. Study registration: This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015015978. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20300 |