Economic evaluation of a 100% whey-based partially hydrolyzed infant formula in the prevention of atopic dermatitis among Danish children

Abstract

Under a range of assumptions, this analysis demonstrated the attractiveness of PHF-W vs both types of EHF in the prevention of AD among 'at risk' Danish infants who are not or cannot be exclusively breastfed.

Economic value of atopic dermatitis prevention via partially-hydrolyzed whey-based infant formula (PHF-W) use in high-risk, non-exclusively breastfed, Indonesian urban infants: results of a cost-effectiveness model

“…Infants were initiated on CMF or PHF-W for the first 17 weeks of life (as in GINI) until 12 months of age or the development of AD. Similar to previous published models on this topic [24][25][26]28,30,31,34 , three treatment approaches were possible after initial development of AD, as confirmed by Indonesian pediatricians with AD treatment experience (authors AS and ZM). The first approach involved a switch in feeding formula, including a switch to extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF), soy or amino acid.…”

“…This reliance on expert opinion is an important limitation of--but is not unique to--the present analysis. For instance, other cost-effectiveness analyses of hydrolyzed formula in Western countries [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] have relied upon similar data collection methods and evidence standards adopted herein. In part, the reliance on expert opinion is dictated by the clinical diagnosis of AD and its subjective assessment of severity.…”

“…16,[21][22][23] As demonstrated previously, the potentially higher costs of PHF-W relative to CMF during the 17-week interventional period should be partially offset by the direct and indirect cost savings and QoL improvements associated with the reduction in AD incidence in this high-risk population. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Using health economic modeling techniques that combine data from the GINI study (the largest comparative trial of infant formula in high risk infants), 14 experts opinions, and local cost data, this study estimated the clinical and economic impact of an intervention consisting in feeding high-risk urban Indonesian infants with PHF-W instead of CMF for the first 17 weeks of life. The analysis was limited to the urban population because it is considered most likely to be consuming the infant formula evaluated herein.…”

Understanding economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema

“…Of the studies found within this review, the most commonly evaluated intervention types were topical calcineurin inhibitors (n = 14), [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] followed by infant formula feeds intended to prevent eczema from developing (n = 10). [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Six studies evaluated a change of service delivery, including the use of web-based consultations, 39 delivering care by a nurse practitioner, [40][41][42] the development of a paediatric dermatology service (although what this entailed was not described) 43 and the use of interdisciplinary group sessions with an educational counterpart. 44 Mason et al also evaluated an educational support programme, which included the provision of an educational DVD and telephone support.…”

The Use of Decision–Analytic Models in Atopic Eczema: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

“…The comparator for all but one of these studies was standard cows' milk formula, with one study [19], comparing with extensively hydrolysed formula milk instead. The remaining three papers considered a mixture of prebiotics [37], oral application of bacterial lysate [30] and various prophylactic moisturisers, which included sunflower seed oil [40].…”