Cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in managing infants with cow's milk allergy in the US

Symptoms and management of cow's milk allergy: perception and evidence

Introduction

The diagnosis and management of cow's milk allergy (CMA) is a topic of debate and controversy. Our aim was to compare the opinions of expert groups from the Middle East (n = 14) and the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) (n = 13).

Methods

These Expert groups voted on statements that were developed by the ESPGHAN group and published in a recent position paper. The voting outcome was compared.

Results

Overall, there was consensus amongst both groups of experts. Experts agreed that symptoms of crying, irritability and colic, as single manifestation, are not suggestive of CMA. They agreed that amino-acid based formula (AAF) should be reserved for severe cases (e.g., malnutrition and anaphylaxis) and that there is insufficient evidence to recommend a step-down approach. There was no unanimous consensus on the statement that a cow's milk based extensively hydrolysed formula (eHF) should be the first choice as a diagnostic elimination diet in mild/moderate cases. Although the statements regarding the role for hydrolysed rice formula as a diagnostic and therapeutic elimination diet were accepted, 3/27 disagreed. The votes regarding soy formula highlight the differences in opinion in the role of soy protein in CMA dietary treatment. Generally, soy-based formula is seldom available in the Middle-East region. All ESPGHAN experts agreed that there is insufficient evidence that the addition of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics increase the efficacy of elimination diets regarding CMA symptoms (despite other benefits such as decrease of infections and antibiotic intake), whereas 3/14 of the Middle East group thought there was sufficient evidence.

Discussion

Differences in voting are related to geographical, cultural and other conditions, such as cost and availability. This emphasizes the need to develop region-specific guidelines considering social and cultural conditions, and to perform further research in this area.

Probiotics in Infancy and Childhood for Food Allergy Prevention and Treatment

Food allergy represents a failure of oral tolerance mechanisms to dietary antigens. Over the past few years, food allergies have become a growing public health problem worldwide. Gut microbiota is believed to have a significant impact on oral tolerance to food antigens and in initiation and maintenance of food allergies. Therefore, probiotics have also been proposed in this field as a possible strategy for modulating both the gut microbiota and the immune system. In recent years, results from preclinical and clinical studies suggest a promising role for probiotics in food allergy prevention and treatment. However, future studies are needed to better understand the mechanisms of action of probiotics in food allergies and to design comparable study protocols using specific probiotic strains, defined doses and exposure times, and longer follow-up periods.

The use of amino acid formulas in pediatric patients with allergy to cow's milk proteins: Recommendations from a group of experts

One of the most common food allergies in children is cow's milk allergy (CMA). In breast-fed infants with CMA, the mother is encouraged to avoid dairy products. If this is not possible, or in formula fed infants, use of hypoallergenic replacement formulas such as extensively hydrolyzed formulas (EHF) is recommended. However, in ∼5% of patients EHFs are not tolerated and/or allergy symptoms can persist. When EHFs are ineffective and in severe forms of CMA, amino acid-based formulas (AAF) should be considered. Six pediatric gastroenterologists with extensive experience in food allergy management reviewed scientific publications and international clinical practice guidelines to provide practical recommendations on AAF. The guidelines reviewed had discrepancies and ambiguities around the specific indications for using formulas as a milk substitute. The panel recommends AAFs as the first therapeutic option in anaphylaxis due to CMA, in acute and chronic severe food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome, in CMA associated with multiple food allergy, and in cases of eosinophilic esophagitis not responding to an extended exclusion diet or not eating solids. The main benefit of AAF is its absence of residual allergenicity, making it a safe treatment option in severe CMA patients who do not tolerate or respond to an EHF.

The Economic Burden of Food Allergy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn

Purpose of Review

Food allergy management and treatment require dietary modification, are associated with significant burdens, and affect food choices and behaviours. Emerging therapies, such as oral immunotherapy (OIT), provide a glimmer of hope for those living with the condition. Some burdens have received substantial focus, whereas many knowledge gaps on the significance of other impacts, including economic burden, remain.

Recent Findings

Evidence from many countries, but disproportionately from the United States, supports that food allergy carries significant healthcare and societal costs. Early introduction for the prevention of food allergies is theoretically cost-effective, but remains largely undescribed. Unique considerations, such as those to cow’s milk protein allergy, which affects a substantial proportion of infants, and adrenaline autoinjectors, which have a high cost-per-use, require a balance between cost-effectiveness to the healthcare system and adverse outcomes. Household costs have largely been explored in two countries, but owing to different healthcare structures and costs of living, comparisons are difficult, as are generalisations to other countries. Stock epinephrine in schools may present a cost-effective strategy, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. Costs relating to OIT must be examined within both immediate benefits, such as protection from anaphylaxis, and long-term benefits, such as sustained unresponsiveness.

Summary

Although the absolute costs differ by region/country and type of food allergy, a consistent pattern persists: food allergy is a costly condition, to those who live with it, and the multiple stakeholders with which they interact.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40521-022-00306-5.

Cost-Effectiveness of Food Allergy Interventions in Children: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

To identify published economic evaluations of interventions aimed at preventing, diagnosing, or treating food allergies in children.

METHODS

We examined economic evaluations published from 2000 to 2019. Data analyzed included: food allergy type, study population/setting, intervention/comparator, and economic evaluation details. Quality assessment used reporting and economic modeling checklists. Two reviewers simultaneously undertook article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment.

RESULTS

17 studies were included: 8 peanut allergy (PA) studies, 8 cow's milk allergy (CMA) studies, and 1 egg allergy (EA) study. All PA studies reported incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained for diagnostic strategies, management pathways for peanut exposure, and immunotherapies. Immunotherapies rendered inconsistent cost-effectiveness results. CMA studies reported costs per symptom-free day or probability of developing CMA tolerance. Cost-effectiveness of extensively hydrolyzed casein formula for CMA treatment was consistently demonstrated. Early introduction of cooked egg in first year of life dominated all EA prevention strategies. Quality assessment showed average noncompliance for 3.5 items/study (range 0-11) for modeling methods and 3.4 items/study (range 0-8) for reporting quality. Key quality concerns included limited justification for model choice, evidence base for model parameters, source of utility values, and representation of uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Recent cost-effectiveness literature of interventions in PA, CMA, and EA is limited and diverse. Interventions for diagnosis and treatment of CMA and prevention of EA were generally cost-effective; however, results for PA were variable and dependent on effectiveness and utility values used. There is a need to expand economic evaluation of interventions for childhood food allergy and to improve methods and reporting.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Hypoallergenic Milk Formulas for the Management of Cow's Milk Protein Allergy in the United Kingdom

Background: Cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) is the most common food allergy in early childhood. In most children CMPA resolves by age 5 or 6; however, if not treated correctly can provoke nutritional deficiency resulting in poor growth. Management consists of excluding cow's milk from the diet, with hypoallergenic formulas (or non-dairy alternatives) being introduced to meet nutritional requirements. Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of hypoallergenic formulas in reducing allergic manifestations and promoting immune tolerance in infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated symptoms of CMPA. Methods: A trial-based decision analytic cohort model was developed to simulate the occurrence of urticaria, eczema, asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, or being symptom-free in infants with CMPA in the United Kingdom. Amino acid-based formula (AAF), extensively hydrolysed casein formula containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus Gorbach Goldin (EHCF+LGG), extensively hydrolysed whey formula (EHWF), and soy formula (SF) were compared using the National Health Service (NHS) perspective, 3-year time horizon and 3.5% discount rate for cost and health consequences. Hypoallergenic formulas comparative efficacy was sourced from a prospective cohort study. Resources required to manage allergic symptoms were sourced from published literature, validated by a UK clinician, and applied to UK cost resources. Results were reported as cost per additional child free from allergic manifestations at 3 years and cost per additional immune tolerant child at 3 years. Results: In the base case, infants receiving EHCF+LGG were associated with lower NHS resource use and improved CMPA tolerance. Over the 3-year treatment period, savings of £119, £476, and £1094 were achieved with EHCF+LGG compared to SF, EHWF and AAF, respectively. Infant formula accounted for the largest proportion of resource consumption averaging 44% for all comparators, with a minimum of 31% for SF and a maximum of 53% for AAF over 3 years. General practitioners' visits constituted the second highest cost component, approximately 17% of total costs across comparators. The results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Compared to AAF, SF, and EHWF hypoallergenic formulas, EHCF+LGG was the most cost-effective, associated with lower total costs and contributing to a higher proportion of children being symptom-free and developing immune tolerance 3-years after diagnosis.

Cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula supplemented with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in managing IgE-mediated cow's milk protein allergy in the UK

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula (eHCF) plus the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (eHCF plus LGG; Nutramigen* LGG^®) compared to an eHCF alone as first-line dietary management for Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) in the UK. Methods: Decision modelling was undertaken to estimate the probability of IgE-mediated cow's milk allergic infants being symptom free (i.e. not experiencing urticaria, eczema, asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis) and developing tolerance to cow's milk by 5 years. The model also estimated the cost (at 2016/2017 prices) of healthcare resource use funded by the UK's National Health Service (NHS) over 5 years after starting a formula, as well as the relative cost-effectiveness of the two dietary formulae. Results: At 5 years after the start of a formula the probability of being symptom free was estimated to be 0.97 and 0.76 among infants who were originally fed eHCF plus LGG and an eHCF alone, respectively. This encompassed the probability of children being asthma free at 5 years after the start of treatment, which was 0.99 and 0.91 in the eHCF plus LGG and eHCF alone groups, respectively. Additionally, the probability of acquiring tolerance to cow's milk was estimated to be 0.94 and 0.66 among infants who were originally fed eHCF plus LGG and an eHCF alone, respectively. The estimated total healthcare cost over 5 years of initially feeding infants with eHCF plus LGG was less than that of feeding infants with an eHCF alone (£4229 versus £5136 per patient). Conclusions: First-line management of newly diagnosed infants with IgE-mediated CMPA with eHCF plus LGG instead of an eHCF alone improves outcome, releases healthcare resources for alternative use, reduces the NHS cost of patient management and thereby affords a cost-effective dietetic strategy to the NHS.