TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of partially-hydrolyzed formula for prevention of atopic dermatitis in Australia
AU - Su, John
AU - Prescott, Susan
AU - Sinn, John
AU - Tang, Mimi
AU - Smith, Peter
AU - Heine, Ralf G.
AU - Spieldenner, Jörg
AU - Iskedjian, Michael
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by Nestlé Nutrition Institute (NNI).
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Objective: To perform an economic evaluation of a specific brand of partially hydrolyzed infant formula (PHF-W) in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) among Australian infants. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the perspectives of the Department of Health and Aging (DHA), of the family of the affected subject and of society as a whole in Australia, based on a decisionanalytic model following a hypothetical representative cohort of Australian newborns who are not exclusively breastfed and who have a familial history of allergic disease (i.e., are deemed 'at risk'). Costs, consequences, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for PHF-W vs standard cow's milk based infant formula (SF), and, in a secondary analysis, vs extensively hydrolyzed infant formula (EHF-Whey), when the latter was used for the prevention of AD. Results: From a representative starting cohort of 87,724 'at risk' newborns in Australia in 2009, the expected ICERs for PHF-W vs SF were AU$496 from the perspective of the DHA and savings of AUD1739 and AU$1243 from the family and societal perspectives, respectively. When compared to EHF-Whey, PHF-W was associated with savings for the cohort of AU$5,183,474 and AU$6,736,513 from the DHA and societal perspectives. Limitations: The generalizability and transferability of results to other settings, populations, or brands of infant formula should be made with caution. Whenever possible, a conservative approach directing bias against PHF-W rather than its comparators was applied in the base case analysis. Assumptions were verified in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, which confirmed the robustness of the model. Conclusions: PHF-W appears to be cost-effective when compared to SF from the DHA perspective, dominant over SF from the other perspectives, and dominant over EHF-Whey from all perspectives, in the prevention of AD in 'at risk' infants not exclusively breastfed, in Australia.
AB - Objective: To perform an economic evaluation of a specific brand of partially hydrolyzed infant formula (PHF-W) in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) among Australian infants. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the perspectives of the Department of Health and Aging (DHA), of the family of the affected subject and of society as a whole in Australia, based on a decisionanalytic model following a hypothetical representative cohort of Australian newborns who are not exclusively breastfed and who have a familial history of allergic disease (i.e., are deemed 'at risk'). Costs, consequences, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for PHF-W vs standard cow's milk based infant formula (SF), and, in a secondary analysis, vs extensively hydrolyzed infant formula (EHF-Whey), when the latter was used for the prevention of AD. Results: From a representative starting cohort of 87,724 'at risk' newborns in Australia in 2009, the expected ICERs for PHF-W vs SF were AU$496 from the perspective of the DHA and savings of AUD1739 and AU$1243 from the family and societal perspectives, respectively. When compared to EHF-Whey, PHF-W was associated with savings for the cohort of AU$5,183,474 and AU$6,736,513 from the DHA and societal perspectives. Limitations: The generalizability and transferability of results to other settings, populations, or brands of infant formula should be made with caution. Whenever possible, a conservative approach directing bias against PHF-W rather than its comparators was applied in the base case analysis. Assumptions were verified in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, which confirmed the robustness of the model. Conclusions: PHF-W appears to be cost-effective when compared to SF from the DHA perspective, dominant over SF from the other perspectives, and dominant over EHF-Whey from all perspectives, in the prevention of AD in 'at risk' infants not exclusively breastfed, in Australia.
KW - Allergy
KW - Atopic dermatitis
KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis
KW - Economic
KW - Infant formula
KW - Infant nutrition
KW - Prevention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869809463&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3111/13696998.2012.697085
DO - 10.3111/13696998.2012.697085
M3 - Article
C2 - 22630113
AN - SCOPUS:84869809463
SN - 1369-6998
VL - 15
SP - 1064
EP - 1077
JO - Journal of Medical Economics
JF - Journal of Medical Economics
IS - 6
ER -