OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the estimates of the economic impact of reducing the AD incidence by feeding a partially hydrolyzed whey-based formula (PHF-W) instead of a standard CMF to high-risk nonexclusively breastfed urban infants for the first 17 weeks of life in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore.
METHODS: In each country, a mathematical model simulated AD incidence and burden from birth to 6 years of age of using PHF-W versus CMF in the target population using data from the German Infant Nutritional Intervention study. The models integrated literature, current cost and market data, and expert clinician opinion. Modeled outcomes included AD risk reduction, time spent after AD diagnosis, AD symptom-free days, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs (direct and indirect). Outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Costs were expressed in USD.
RESULTS: Feeding high-risk infants PHF-W instead of CMF resulted in an estimated absolute 14% (95% CI 1-24) AD risk reduction, a 0.69-year (95% CI 0.25-1.13) reduction in the time spent after AD diagnosis per child, reductions of 16-38 AD days, and gains in 0.02-0.04 QALYs, depending on the country. The per-child AD-related 6-year cost-saving estimates of feeding high-risk infants with PHF-W versus CMF were USD 739 in Singapore, USD 372 in Malaysia, and USD 237 in the Philippines.
METHODS: A systematic review and Delphi consensus panel (consisting of eight8 international pediatric allergists and gastroenterologists) was conducted to evaluate evidence supporting growth, tolerability, and effectiveness of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants.
RESULTS: None of the studies reviewed identified potential harm of pHF use compared with CMP in non-exclusively breastfed infants. There was an expert consensus that pHF use is likely as safe as intact CMP formula, given studies suggesting these have comparable nutritional parameters. No high-quality studies were identified evaluating the use of pHF to prevent allergic disease in non-exclusively breastfed infants who are not at risk for allergic disease (e.g., lacking a parental history of allergy). Limited data suggest that pHF use in non-exclusively breastfed infants may be associated with improved gastric emptying, decreased colic incidence, and other common functional gastrointestinal symptoms compared with CMP. However, because the data are of insufficient quality, the findings from these studies have to be taken with caution. No studies were identified that directly compared the different types of pHF, but there was an expert consensus that growth, allergenicity, tolerability, effectiveness, and clinical role among such pHF products may differ.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist evaluating routine use of pHFs in non-exclusively breastfed infants, with no contraindications identified in the systematic review. An expert consensus considers pHFs for which data were available to be as safe as CMP formula as growth is normal. The preventive effect on allergy of pHF in infants who are not at risk for allergic disease has been poorly studied. Cost of pHF versus starter formula with intact protein differs from country to country. However, further studies in larger populations are needed to clinically confirm the benefits of routine use of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants. These studies should also address potential consumer preference bias.