| Abstract: | AbstractObjective: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. |
