Meta-analysis of a partially hydrolysed 100%-whey infant formula vs. extensively hydrolysed infant formulas in the prevention of atopic dermatitis

A partially hydrolyzed formula with synbiotics supports adequate growth and is well tolerated in healthy, Chinese term infants: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate growth and gastrointestinal tolerance in infants fed a partially hydrolyzed protein formula (pHF) with a synbiotic mixture of short-chain galacto-oligosaccharides and long-chain fructooligosaccharides (scGOS/lcFOS; 9:1) and Bifidobacterium breve M-16V (test formula) compared with an intact protein infant formula (IF) with scGOS/lcFOS (control formula).

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial enrolled healthy, fully formula-fed Chinese infants (≤44 d) who received either the test (n = 112) or control formula (n = 112) until 17 wk of age. Fully breastfed infants served as a reference (n = 60). Anthropometrics, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events were assessed monthly. Primary outcome was weight gain in grams per day from baseline to 17 wk of age.

RESULTS

Equivalence in daily weight gain (primary outcome) was demonstrated between the test and control groups (estimated mean difference [SE]: -0.36 [0.93] g/d, 90% confidence interval [CI], -1.90 to 1.18) as well as between each IF group and the breastfed reference group (test: 0.02 [1.05] g/d, 90% CI, -1.71 to 1.75; control: 0.36 [1.04] g/d, 90% CI, -1.35 to 2.08). There were no clinically relevant differences in gastrointestinal tolerance or adverse events between the formula groups.

CONCLUSION

A pHF with synbiotics supports adequate growth and is well tolerated in healthy, term-born Chinese infants. Additionally, infant growth and gastrointestinal tolerance measures of both IF groups were comparable to the breastfed group and can be considered suitable and well tolerated for use.

Partially Hydrolysed Whey-Based Infant Formula Improves Skin Barrier Function

Specific partially hydrolysed whey-based infant formulas (pHF-W) have been shown to decrease the risk of atopic dermatitis (AD) in infants. Historically, AD has been associated primarily with milk allergy; however, defective skin barrier function can be a primary cause of AD. We aimed to ascertain whether oral supplementation with pHF-W can improve skin barrier function. The effect of pHF-W was assessed on transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and antibody productions in mice epicutaneously exposed to Aspergillus fumigatus. Human primary keratinocytes were stimulated in vitro, and the expression of genes related to skin barrier function was measured. Supplementation with pHF-W in neonatal mice led to a significant decrease in TEWL and total IgE, but not in allergen-specific antibody levels. The whey hydrolysate was sufficient to decrease both TEWL and total IgE. Aquaporin-3 gene expression, linked with skin hydration, was modulated in the skin of mice and human primary keratinocytes following protein hydrolysate exposure. Skin barrier improvement may be an additional mechanism by which pHF-W may potentially reduce the risk of AD development in infants. Further human studies are warranted to confirm the clinical efficacy of these observations.

Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease

BACKGROUND

Infant formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been widely advocated for preventing allergic disease in infants, in place of standard cow's milk formula (CMF). However, it is unclear whether the clinical trial evidence supports this.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergic disease when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk. If hydrolysed formulas are effective, to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective, including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula (EHF/PHF). To determine whether infants at low or high risk of allergic disease, and whether infants receiving early short-term (first few days after birth) or prolonged formula feeding benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1948 to 3 November 2017), and Embase (1974 to 3 November 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles and previous reviews for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared use of a hydrolysed formula versus human milk or CMF. Outcomes with ≥ 80% follow-up of participants from eligible trials were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data from the included studies. Fixed-effect analyses were performed. The treatment effects were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals and quality of evidence using the GRADE quality of evidence approach. The primary outcome was all allergic disease (including asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis and food allergy).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days infant supplementation with an EHF while in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. A single study enrolling 90 infants reported no difference in all allergic disease (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.38 to 5.37) or any specific allergic disease up to childhood including cow's milk allergy (CMA) (RR 7.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 143.84). A single study reported no difference in infant CMA (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.46; participants = 3559). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.No eligible trials compared prolonged hydrolysed formula versus human milk feeding.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days infant supplementation with an EHF versus a CMF. A single study enrolling 90 infants reported no difference in all allergic disease (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.33 to 5.71; participants = 77) or any specific allergic disease including CMA up to childhood. A single study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00; participants = 3473). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.Twelve studies assessed the effect of prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF. The data showed no difference in all allergic disease in infants (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; participants = 2852; studies = 8) and children (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; participants = 950; studies = 2), and no difference in any specific allergic disease including infant asthma (typical RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.04; participants = 318; studies = 4), eczema (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09; participants = 2896; studies = 9), rhinitis (typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.85; participants = 256; studies = 3), food allergy (typical RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.33; participants = 479; studies = 2), and CMA (RR 2.31, 95% CI 0.24 to 21.97; participants = 338; studies = 1). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergic disease. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA. Further trials are recommended before implementation of this practice.We found no evidence to support prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for prevention of allergic disease in infants unable to be exclusively breast fed.

WITHDRAWN: Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Allergy is common and may be associated with foods, including cow's milk formula (CMF). Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy. However, it is unclear whether hydrolysed formulas can be advocated for prevention of allergy in infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergy and food allergy when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk. If hydrolysed formulas are effective, to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective, including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula (EHF/PHF). To determine which infants at low or high risk of allergy and which infants receiving early, short-term or prolonged formula feeding may benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group supplemented by cross referencing of previous reviews and publications (updated August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared use of a hydrolysed formula versus human milk or CMF. Trials with ≥ 80% follow-up of participants were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergy and food allergy. We conducted meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (FE) model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days' infant supplementation with an EHF whilst in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. Results showed no difference in infant allergy or childhood cow's milk allergy (CMA). No eligible trials compared prolonged hydrolysed formula versus human milk feeding.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days infant supplementation with an EHF versus a CMF. One large quasi-random study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance among low-risk infants (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.00).Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was associated with a reduction in infant allergy (eight studies, 2852 infants; FE RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100) and infant CMA (two studies, 405 infants; FE RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86). We had substantial methodological concerns regarding studies and concerns regarding publication bias, as substantial numbers of studies including those in high-risk infants have not comprehensively reported allergy outcomes (GRADE quality of evidence 'very low').Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was not associated with a difference in childhood allergy and led to no differences in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy. Many of the analyses assessing specific allergy are underpowered.Subroup analyses showed that infant allergy was reduced in studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy who used a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF. Studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF found a reduction in infant CMA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergy. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA.In infants at high risk of allergy not exclusively breast fed, very low-quality evidence suggests that prolonged hydrolysed formula feeding compared with CMF feeding reduces infant allergy and infant CMA. Studies have found no difference in childhood allergy and no difference in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy.Very low-quality evidence shows that prolonged use of a partially hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for partial or exclusive feeding was associated with a reduction in infant allergy incidence and CMA incidence, and that prolonged use of an EHF versus a PHF reduces infant food allergy.

Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Allergy is common and may be associated with foods, including cow's milk formula (CMF). Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy. However, it is unclear whether hydrolysed formulas can be advocated for prevention of allergy in infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergy and food allergy when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk. If hydrolysed formulas are effective, to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective, including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula (EHF/PHF). To determine which infants at low or high risk of allergy and which infants receiving early, short-term or prolonged formula feeding may benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group supplemented by cross referencing of previous reviews and publications (updated August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared use of a hydrolysed formula versus human milk or CMF. Trials with ≥ 80% follow-up of participants were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergy and food allergy. We conducted meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (FE) model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days' infant supplementation with an EHF whilst in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. Results showed no difference in infant allergy or childhood cow's milk allergy (CMA). No eligible trials compared prolonged hydrolysed formula versus human milk feeding.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days' infant supplementation with an EHF versus a CMF. One large quasi-random study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance among low-risk infants (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.00).Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was associated with a reduction in infant allergy (eight studies, 2852 infants; FE RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100) and infant CMA (two studies, 405 infants; FE RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86). We had substantial methodological concerns regarding studies and concerns regarding publication bias, as substantial numbers of studies including those in high-risk infants have not comprehensively reported allergy outcomes (GRADE quality of evidence 'very low').Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was not associated with a difference in childhood allergy and led to no differences in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy. Many of the analyses assessing specific allergy are underpowered.Subroup analyses showed that infant allergy was reduced in studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy who used a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF. Studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF found a reduction in infant CMA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergy. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA.In infants at high risk of allergy not exclusively breast fed, very low-quality evidence suggests that prolonged hydrolysed formula feeding compared with CMF feeding reduces infant allergy and infant CMA. Studies have found no difference in childhood allergy and no difference in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy.Very low-quality evidence shows that prolonged use of a partially hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for partial or exclusive feeding was associated with a reduction in infant allergy incidence and CMA incidence, and that prolonged use of an EHF versus a PHF reduces infant food allergy.

Should Partial Hydrolysates Be Used as Starter Infant Formula? A Working Group Consensus

Partially hydrolyzed formulas (pHFs) are increasingly used worldwide, both in the prevention of atopic disease in at-risk infants and in the therapeutic management of infants with functional gastrointestinal manifestations. Because prevention is always preferable to treatment, we reviewed the literature aiming to find an answer for the question whether pHF may be recommended for feeding all infants if breast-feeding is not possible. PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2014. In addition, to search for data that remained undetected by the searches, we approached authors of relevant articles and major producers of pHFs asking for unpublished data. Because few data were found, nonrandomized, controlled trials and trials in preterm infants were included as well. Overall, only limited data could be found on the efficacy and safety of pHF in healthy term infants. Available data do not indicate that pHFs are potentially harmful for healthy, term infants. With respect to long-term outcomes, particularly referring to immune, metabolic and hormonal effects, data are, however, nonexistent. From a regulatory point of view, pHFs meet the nutrient requirements to be considered as standard formula for term healthy infants. Cost, which is different from country to country, should be considered in the decision-making process. Based on limited available data, the use of pHF in healthy infants is safe with regard to growth. The lack of data, in particular for metabolic consequences and long-term outcomes, is, however, the basis for our recommendation that health authorities should develop and support long-term follow-up studies. Efficacy and long-term safety data are required before a recommendation of this type of formula for all infants can be made.

Economic Burden of Atopic Dermatitis in High-Risk Infants Receiving Cow's Milk or Partially Hydrolyzed 100% Whey-Based Formula

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the health and economic impact of feeding partially hydrolyzed formula-whey (PHF-W) instead of standard cow's milk formula (CMF) for the first 4 months of life among US infants at high risk for developing atopic dermatitis (AD).

STUDY DESIGN

A Markov model was developed integrating published data, a survey of US pediatricians, costing sources and market data, and expert opinion. Key modeled outcomes included reduction in AD risk, time spent post AD diagnosis, days without AD flare, and AD-related costs. Costs and clinical consequences were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

An estimated absolute 14-percentage point reduction in AD risk was calculated with the use of PHF-W compared with CMF (95% CI for difference, 3%-22%). Relative to CMF, PHF-W decreased the time spent post-AD diagnosis by 8.3 months (95% CI, 2.78-13.31) per child and increased days without AD flare by 39 days (95% CI, 13-63) per child. The AD-related, 6-year total cost estimate was $495 less (95% CI, -$813 to -$157) per child with PHF-W ($724 per child; 95% CI, $385-$1269) compared with CMF ($1219 per child; 95% CI, $741-$1824).

CONCLUSION

Utilization of PHF-W in place of CMF as the initial infant formula administered to high-risk US infants not exclusively breastfed during the first 4 months of life may reduce the incidence and economic burden of AD. Broad implementation of this strategy could result in a minimum savings of $355 million per year to society.

Economic value of atopic dermatitis prevention via infant formula use in high-risk Malaysian infants

Background

Breastfeeding is best for infants and the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for at least the first 6 months of life. For those who are unable to be breastfed, previous studies demonstrate that feeding high-risk infants with hydrolyzed formulas instead of cow's milk formula (CMF) may decrease the risk of atopic dermatitis (AD).

Objective

To estimate the economic impact of feeding high-risk, not exclusively breastfed, urban Malaysian infants with partiallyhydrolyzed whey-based formula (PHF-W) instead of CMF for the first 17 weeks of life as an AD risk reduction strategy.

Methods

A cohort Markov model simulated the AD incidence and burden from birth to age 6 years in the target population fed with PHF-W vs. CMF. The model integrated published clinical and epidemiologic data, local cost data, and expert opinion. Modeled outcomes included AD-risk reduction, time spent post AD diagnosis, days without AD flare, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs (direct and indirect). Outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Costs are expressed in Malaysian Ringgit (MYR; MYR 1,000 = United States dollar [US $]316.50).

Results

Feeding a high-risk infant PHF-W vs. CMF resulted in a 14% point reduction in AD risk (95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-23%), a 0.69-year (95% CI, 0.25-1.10) reduction in time spent post-AD diagnosis, additional 38 (95% CI, 2-94) days without AD flare, and an undiscounted gain of 0.041 (95% CI, 0.007-0.103) QALYs. The discounted AD-related 6-year cost estimates when feeding a high-risk infant with PHF-W were MYR 1,758 (US $556) (95% CI, MYR 917-3,033) and with CMF MYR 2,871 (US $909) (95% CI, MYR 1,697-4,278), resulting in a per-child net saving of MYR 1,113 (US $352) (95% CI, MYR 317-1,884) favoring PHF-W.

Conclusion

Using PHF-W instead of CMF in this population is expected to result in AD-related costs savings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Partially Hydrolyzed Whey Protein Formula in the Primary Prevention of Atopic Dermatitis in At-Risk Urban Filipino Infants

OBJECTIVE

To estimate, from a Filipino societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of preventing atopic dermatitis (AD) via early nutritional intervention with 100% whey-based partially hydrolyzed formula (PHF-W) versus standard cow's milk formula (SF) in healthy, urban infants with atopic heredity who are not exclusively breast-fed.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate over 6 years the incidence of AD, days with AD symptoms, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and AD-related direct and indirect (i.e., parents'/caregivers' productivity loss) costs incurred by hypothetical cohorts of healthy, at-risk infants fed with either PHF-W or SF as AD prevention for ≤ 17 weeks. Efficacy estimates of PHF-W versus SF in preventing AD were literature-based. The resources used to manage AD (by severity, age, and treatment modality) were estimated using clinical pathways derived from clinical expert opinion. Local costs were applied to resource use. Results were presented as point estimates and as 95 percent credible intervals (CIs, i.e., range of values around the point estimate that include 95% of model simulations) generated via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation techniques. All costs are reported in Philippines pesos (₱, where ₱1000 = US $22.24). All reported outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per year.

RESULTS

Based on the 6-year simulation, compared with SF, PHF-W was predicted to result in a 14-percentage point reduction (i.e., 39% vs. 25%) (95% CI 0.09-0.19) in the incidence of AD and a gain of 0.03 (i.e., 5.46 vs. 5.43) (95% CI 0.01-0.07) QALYs/patient. PHF-W's higher feeding formula cost (+₱1,304/patient) (95% CI -₱3,090 to ₱5,779) were offset by reductions in AD-related costs (-₱11,959/patient; i.e., ₱27,228 vs. ₱15,269) (95% CI -₱14,685 to -₱7,284), including, in particular, the costs of pharmacotherapy, formula used as treatment, and visits to physicians. As a result, PHF-W became a net cost-saving strategy within 38 weeks. Overall, PHF-W resulted in net savings of -₱10,654 (-US $237) (CI -₱4,240 [-US $94] to -₱14,544 [-US $323]) (i.e., ₱27,228 [US $606] vs. ₱16,574 [US $369]). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of results; the most influential variable was the first-year risk reduction in AD.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present modeling exercise, compared with SF, PHF-W appears to substantially reduce the risk of AD and its associated direct and indirect medical costs in healthy, at-risk urban Filipino infants over a 6-year period.

Is prevention of atopic eczema with hydrolyzed formulas cost-effective? A health economic evaluation from Germany

OBJECTIVE

The German Infant Nutritional Intervention (GINI) trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blind intervention, enrolled children with a hereditary risk for atopy. When fed with certain hydrolyzed formulas for the first 4 months of life, the risk was reduced by 26-45% in PP and 8-29% in intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses compared with children fed with regular cow's milk at age 6. The objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of feeding hydrolyzed formulas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was assessed with a decision tree model programmed in TreeAge. Costs and effects over a 6-yr period were analyzed from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI) and a societal perspective at a 3% effective discount rate followed by sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The extensively hydrolyzed casein formula would be the most cost-saving strategy with savings of 478 € per child treated in the ITT analysis (CI95%: 12 €; 852 €) and 979 € in the PP analysis (95%CI: 355 €; 1455 €) from a societal perspective. If prevented cases are considered, the partially whey hydrolyzed formula is cost-saving (ITT -5404 €, PP -6358 €). From an SHI perspective, the partially whey hydrolyzed formula is cost-effective, but may also be cost-saving depending on the scenario. An extensively hydrolyzed whey formula also included into the analysis was dominated in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

For the prevention of AE, two formulas can be cost-effective or even cost-saving. We recommend that SHI should reimburse formula feeding or at least the difference between costs for cow's milk formula and the most cost-effective formula.

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

OBJECTIVE

A pharmacoeconomic analysis was undertaken to determine costs, consequences, and cost-effectiveness of a partially hydrolyzed 100% whey-based infant formula, NAN-HA®, manufactured by Nestlé S.A, Switzerland (PHF-W), branded under BEBA HA® in Switzerland, in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 'at risk' Swiss children when compared to standard cow's milk formula (SF).

METHODS

Based on a 12-month time horizon including 6 months of formula consumption, an economic model was developed synthesizing treatment pathways, resource utilization, and costs associated with the treatment of AD in healthy 'at risk' Swiss newborns who could not be exclusively breastfed. Model inputs were retrieved from the literature, official formularies, and expert opinion. The treatment pathways considered a medical treatment approach, supplemented in some instances by a change of formula. The final outcome was the expected cost per avoided case of AD, yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PHF-W vs SF. Outcomes were presented from three perspectives: the Swiss public healthcare system (MOH), the subject's family, and society (SOC). A secondary analysis compared PHF-W to whey-based extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) in prevention.

RESULTS

The model yielded 1653 avoided AD cases by selecting PHF-W over SF in a birth cohort of 22,933 'at risk' infants. The base case analyses generated an expected ICER of CHF 982 from the MOH perspective as well as savings of CHF 2202 and CHF 1220 from the family and SOC perspectives, respectively. PHF-W yielded CHF 11.4M savings against EHF when the latter was assumed to be used in prevention. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.

CONCLUSION

Under a range of assumptions, this analysis has established the dominance from the family and societal perspectives and cost-effectiveness from the MOH perspective of PHF-W vs SF in the prevention of AD among 'at risk' Swiss infants.

Cost-effectiveness of partially-hydrolyzed formula for prevention of atopic dermatitis in Australia

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 decision-analytic 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.

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

OBJECTIVE

A pharmacoeconomic analysis was undertaken to determine costs, consequences, and cost-effectiveness of a brand of partially hydrolyzed 100%-whey formula manufactured by Nestlé (PHF-W), in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 'at risk' Danish children compared to extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF-Whey or Casein).

METHODS

Given the non-significant differences between PHF-W and EHF, the base case analytic approach amounted to a cost-minimization analysis (CMA) reporting the difference in formula acquisition costs over the period of formula consumption for the population of interest. However, sensitivity analyses (SAs) were undertaken to explore applying the nominal efficacy of PHF-W and EHF, thus leading to a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Hence, an economic model based on a 12-month time horizon was developed synthesizing treatment pathways, resource utilization, and costs associated with the treatment of AD in the population of interest. The final economic outcome of the SAs was the incremental cost per avoided case (ICER) defined as the expected cost per avoided case of AD for PHF-W vs EHF, determined from three perspectives: the Ministry of Health (MOH), the family of the subject, and society (SOC).

RESULTS

In the base case CMA, savings of DKK 9 M, DKK 20 M, and DKK 29 M were generated for PHF-W vs EHF from the MOH, family, and SOC perspectives. In the sensitivity CEA, PHF-W was dominant over EHF-Whey from all perspectives, while EHF-Casein displayed against PHF-W unattractive ICERs of DKK 315,930, DKK 408,407, and DKK 724,337 from the MOH, family, and SOC perspectives. Probabilistic SAs indicated that PHF-W was 86% likely to be dominant over EHF-Whey, whereas EHF-Casein had no likelihood of dominating PHF-W.

CONCLUSION

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.

Partially hydrolysed 100% whey-based infant formula and the prevention of atopic dermatitis: comparative pharmacoeconomic analyses

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.

Economic evaluation of a 100% whey-based, partially hydrolysed formula in the prevention of atopic dermatitis among French children

OBJECTIVE

A pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed to determine costs, consequences and cost effectiveness of a partially hydrolysed 100% whey-based infant formula, NAN HA, manufactured by Nestlé S.A, Switzerland (PHF-W) and branded under Nidal Excel HA in France, in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 'at risk' children when compared to standard cows' milk formula (SF) in France.

METHODS

A decision-analytic economic model depicting AD treatment pathways, as well as resource utilisation and costs associated with the treatment of AD in healthy yet 'at risk' French newborns who cannot be exclusively breastfed was constructed for a 12-month time horizon, including an initial 6 months of intervention with formula consumption. Model inputs were based on the literature, official formularies and expert opinion. The modelled treatment pathways included a dietary management approach (formula change), a medical treatment approach and a combination thereof. The final outcome was the expected cost per avoided case of AD, yielding an incremental cost per avoided case (ICER) of AD when comparing subjects who used PHF-W versus SF. Outcomes were presented from three perspectives: the French Ministry of Health (MOH), the subjects' family and society as a whole. A secondary analysis also compared PHF-W to extensively hydrolysed formula (EHF) in prevention.

RESULTS

The number of avoided AD cases by selecting PHF-W over SF was 13,356 cases in a birth cohort of 185,298 'at risk' infants. The base case analysis, at 65% reimbursement, yielded expected ICERs of €1343, € -624 (savings) and €719 from the MOH, family and societal perspectives, respectively. From all three perspectives, the highest cost was attributable to formula. In case of a 35% reimbursement rate for PHF-W, the ICER was €615 from the MOH perspective, while the use of PHF-W was cost neutral at 10% reimbursement. PHF-W was cost-saving against EHF (€98-€116 million savings depending on type of EHF), when this latter was used in prevention. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.

CONCLUSION

Under a certain range of assumptions, this analysis based on predictive modelling has established the cost effectiveness of PHF-W in the prevention of AD in infants.