These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Partially hydrolysed 100% whey-based infant formula and the prevention of atopic dermatitis: comparative pharmacoeconomic analyses.
    Author: Spieldenner J, Belli D, Dupont C, Haschke F, Iskedjian M, Nevot Falcó S, Szajewska H, von Berg A.
    Journal: Ann Nutr Metab; 2011; 59 Suppl 1():44-52. PubMed ID: 22189255.
    Abstract:
    Clinical trials have demonstrated that the risk of developing atopic dermatitis is reduced when using hydrolysed formulas to feed infants with a documented risk of atopy (i.e. an affected parent and/or sibling)when breastfeeding is not practised. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of using hydrolysed formulas. Consequently, economic analyses in 5 European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland) have evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of a specific brand of 100% whey-based partially hydrolysed infant formula, NAN-HA® (PHF-W) compared with a cow's milk standard formula (SF) in the prevention of atopic dermatitis in at-risk children. This review synthesises the findings of these studies. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) used a decision-analytic model to determine treatment pathways, resource utilisation and costs associated with the management of atopic dermatitis in healthy at-risk newborns who were not exclusively breastfed. The model had a 12-month horizon and applied reimbursement rates of 60-100% depending on the country. Outcomes were considered from the perspective of the public healthcare system (e.g. the Ministry of Health; MOH), family and society. The final outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per avoided case of atopic dermatitis (ICER) for PHF-W versus SF. A cost-minimisation analysis was also performed to compare PHF-W with extensively hydrolysed formulas (EHF). The base-case CEA produced ICERs per avoided case for PHF-W versus SF of EUR 982-1,343 (MOH perspective), EUR -2,202 to -624 (family perspective) indicating savings, and EUR -1,220 to 719 from the societal perspective. The main costs related to formula (MOH and society) and time loss (family). In the cost-minimisation analysis, PHF-W yielded savings of between EUR 4.3 and 120 million compared with EHF-whey when the latter was used in prevention. In conclusion, PHF-W was cost-effective versus SF in the prevention of atopic dermatitis and cost saving compared with EHF when used in prevention.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]