ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2024
A cost-effectiveness analysis for high versus standard (low) dose caffeine for the treatment of apnea in neonatal intensive care unit.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Preterm babies are prone to experiencing apnea of prematurity (AOP), mostly characterised by a pause in breathing lasting a minimum of 20 seconds. Recent literature supported higher maintenance doses of caffeine, indicating benefits. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of high maintenance dose (HD) versus low maintenance dose (LD) caffeine for AOP in neonates. Methods: From the hospital perspective of Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC), Qatar, a cost-effectiveness decision-analytic model was constructed to follow the use of a HD maintenance caffeine of 20 mg/kg/dose versus a LD maintenance caffeine of 10 mg/kg/dose, in a simulated cohort of AOP neonates, over a therapy follow-up duration of six weeks, until neonatal intensive care (NICU) discharge. The clinical inputs were primarily literature-based, while the resource cost and utilisation were locally extracted in HMC. The cost-effectiveness outcome measure was calculated per therapy success, defined as survival with no apnea and successful extubation removal within 72 hours, with or without adverse events. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm the robustness of the results. Results: With 0.23 (95% CI, 0.23-0.23) enhancement in success rate, at United States dollar (US$) 3869 (95% CI, US$ 3823-3915) added infant cost, the HD caffeine was between dominant (34.8%) and cost-effective (63.7%), with an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $16,895 (95% CI, US$ 15,242-18,549) relative to LD caffeine per additional case of success. The hospitalisation contributed the most to the total infant cost, and the probability of patent ductus arteriosus was the model input that influenced the results most. Conclusion: This is the first literature economic evaluation of caffeine for AOP. Despite increasing the cost of therapy, HD maintenance caffeine seems to be a cost-effective alternative to LD caffeine in Qatar. Our results support the recent global trends of increased use of HD caffeine for AOP in NICU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.