Cost effectiveness analysis of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation based on four year results from the UK Collaborative ECMO Trial

Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition

Volumn 89, Issue 3, 2004, Pages

  Petrou, S ^a   Edwards, L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIRTH WEIGHT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMMUNITY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEATH; DISABILITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; EXTRACORPOREAL OXYGENATION; FOLLOW UP; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE COST; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; NEWBORN; NEWBORN CARE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESPIRATORY FAILURE; RISK; SURVIVAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME, NEWBORN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 2342560472     PISSN: 13592998     EISSN: 14682052     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/adc.2002.025635     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. UK Collaborative ECMO Trial Group. UK collaborative randomised trial of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Lancet 1996;348:75-82.
2. Stolar CJ, Snedecor SM, Bartlett RH. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and neonatal respiratory failure: experience from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. J Pediatr Surg 1991;26:563-71.
3. Elboune D, Field D, Mugford M. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe respiratory failure in newborn infants. Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
4. Editorial. Persistent fetal circulation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Lancet 1988;ii:1289-91.
5. Dworetz AP, Moya FR, Sabo B, et al. Survival of infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Pediatrics 1989;84:1-6.
6. O'Rourke PP, Crone RK, Vacanti JP, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and conventional medical therapy in neonates with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn: a prospective randomised study. Pediatrics 1989;84:957-63.
7. Bartlett RH. Extracorporeal life support for cardiopulmonary failure. Curr Probl Surg 1990;27:621-705.
8. Bifano EM, Hakanson DO, Hingre RV, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of conventional treatment or transport for ECMO in infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) [abstract]. Pediatr Res 1992;31:196A.
9. Gross SJ, Bifano EM, Gugenio D, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of conventional treatment or transport for ECMO in infants with severe persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN): two year follow up [abstract]. Pediatr Res 1994;36:17A.
10. Peckham M. Research and development for the National Health Service. Lancet 1991;338:367-71.
11. Roberts TE and the ECMO Economics Working Group. Economic evaluation and randomised controlled trial of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: UK Collaborative Trial. BMJ 1998;317:911-15.
12. Bennett CC, Johnson A, Field D, et al. UK collaborative randomised trial of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: follow-up to age 4 years. Lancet 2001;357:1094-6.
13. Hallman M, Merritt A, Harvenpaa AL. Exogenous human surfactant for treatment of severe respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised prospective trial. J Pediatr 1985;106:963-9.
14. Bennett CC. Long-term morbidity in survivors of a randomised controlled trial of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within the United Kingdom: Follow-up at four years of age. MD thesis, University of London, January 2002.
15. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
16. Petrou S, Davidson LL. Economic issues in the follow-up of neonates. Semin Neonatol 2000;5:159-69.
17. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. on behalf of the BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313:275-83.
18. O'Neill C, Malek M, Mugford M, et al. A cost analysis of neonatal care in the UK: results from a multicentre study. J Publ Health Med 2002;22:108-15.
19. Netten A, Rees T, Horrison G. Unit cost of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2001.
20. Allen C, Beecham J. Costing services: ideals and reality. In: Netten A, Beecham J, eds. Costing community care: theory and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1993:25-42.
21. Lothgren M, Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2000;9:623-30.
22. Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001;323:1300-3.
23. Lin DY, Feuer EJ, Etzioni R, et al. Estimating medical costs from incomplete Follow-up data. Biometrica 1997;53:113-28.
24. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001.
25. Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 2000;19:3219-36.
26. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:1-134.
27. Briggs A, Sculpher M. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1995;4:355-72.
28. Drummond MF. Cost-effectiveness guidelines for reimbursement of pharmaceuticals: is economic evaluation ready for its enhanced status? Health Econ 1992;1:85-92.
29. Petrou S, Murray L, Cooper P, et al. The accuracy of self-reported health care resource utilization in health economic studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:705-10.
30. Parsonage M, Neuberger H. Discounting and health benefits. Health Econ 1992;1:71-6.
31. Brouwer W, van-Hout B, Rutten F. A fair approach to discounting future effects: taking a societal perspective. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000;5:114-18.
32. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:473-81.
33. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Cost-effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. BMJ 1998;317:720-6.
34. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:559-75.