Neonatology · 2026
Prospective Economic Evaluation Ancillary to a Trial of Higher versus Lower Hemoglobin Transfusion Thresholds for Preterm Infants.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zupancic John A F, King Brian C, Mowitz Meredith, Mao Wenyang, Dukhovny Dmitry, Schmidt Barbara, Tan Sylvia, Chaudhary Aasma S, Crawford Margaret M, Bell Edward F, O'Donnell Auman Jeanette, Walsh Michele C, Higgins Rosemary D, Das Abhik, Kirpalani Haresh
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Higher or Lower Hemoglobin Transfusion Thresholds for Preterm Infants randomized trial compared higher versus lower hemoglobin transfusion thresholds in extremely low birth weight infants. This publication compares the economic implications of the two strategies.
METHODS: We undertook a prospectively planned economic evaluation, using patient-level data from the parent clinical trial. We report costs in 2020 US dollars, from health sector and modified societal perspectives, with a time horizon through the end of clinical follow-up. We derived costs from hospital finance systems, Medicaid fee schedules, family questionnaires, and efficacy from trial data.
RESULTS: Of the 1,824 patients enrolled at 19 centers in the trial, data were available for 1,305 for analysis from a health sector perspective and 752 for analysis from a societal perspective. The mean cost from the health sector perspective was USD 331,186 per patient in the higher hemoglobin transfusion threshold group and USD 351,579 in the lower hemoglobin transfusion threshold group; the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for study site and birth weight stratum (p = 0.085). The difference in mean costs from the societal perspective was also not statistically significant (p = 0.094). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adoption of a lower transfusion threshold from health sector and societal perspectives were USD 6,797,666 and USD 5,596,666 per additional survivor without neurodevelopmental impairment, respectively. There was substantial uncertainty in these cost-effectiveness estimates.
DISCUSSION: Similarly to prior results for clinical efficacy, choosing between a lower or higher hemoglobin transfusion threshold for extremely preterm infants has no significant economic advantage.
METHODS: We undertook a prospectively planned economic evaluation, using patient-level data from the parent clinical trial. We report costs in 2020 US dollars, from health sector and modified societal perspectives, with a time horizon through the end of clinical follow-up. We derived costs from hospital finance systems, Medicaid fee schedules, family questionnaires, and efficacy from trial data.
RESULTS: Of the 1,824 patients enrolled at 19 centers in the trial, data were available for 1,305 for analysis from a health sector perspective and 752 for analysis from a societal perspective. The mean cost from the health sector perspective was USD 331,186 per patient in the higher hemoglobin transfusion threshold group and USD 351,579 in the lower hemoglobin transfusion threshold group; the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for study site and birth weight stratum (p = 0.085). The difference in mean costs from the societal perspective was also not statistically significant (p = 0.094). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adoption of a lower transfusion threshold from health sector and societal perspectives were USD 6,797,666 and USD 5,596,666 per additional survivor without neurodevelopmental impairment, respectively. There was substantial uncertainty in these cost-effectiveness estimates.
DISCUSSION: Similarly to prior results for clinical efficacy, choosing between a lower or higher hemoglobin transfusion threshold for extremely preterm infants has no significant economic advantage.