Objective:The aim of this study was to explore heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in children following extubation.Design:Using data from the FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC) trial, we explore heterogeneity at the individual and subgroup levels using a causal forest approach, alongside a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) approach for comparison.Settings:FIRST-ABC is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) including children in UK paediatric intensive care units, which compared HFNC with CPAP as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support.Patients:In the step-down FIRST-ABC, 600 children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. In this analysis, 118 patients were excluded because they did not consent to accessing their medical records, did not consent to follow-up questionnaire or did not receive respiratory support.Measurements and Main Results:The primary outcome of this study is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gain. INB is calculated based on total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months. The findings suggest modest heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP at the subgroup level, while greater heterogeneity is detected at the individual level.Conclusions:The estimated overall INB of HFNC is smaller than the INB for patients with better baseline status suggesting that HFNC can be more cost-effective among less severely ill patients.