> Detailanzeige

Mertens, Janina; Stock, Stephanie; Lüngen, Markus; v. Berg, Andrea; Krämer, Ursula; Filipiak‐Pittroff, Birgit; Heinrich, Joachim; Koletzko, Sibylle; Grübl, Armin; Wichmann, H.‐Erich; Bauer, Carl‐P.; Reinhardt, Dietrich; Berdel, Dietrich; Gerber, Andreas

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

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Is prevention of atopic eczema with hydrolyzed formulas cost‐effective? A health economic evaluation from Germany
  • Beteiligte: Mertens, Janina; Stock, Stephanie; Lüngen, Markus; v. Berg, Andrea; Krämer, Ursula; Filipiak‐Pittroff, Birgit; Heinrich, Joachim; Koletzko, Sibylle; Grübl, Armin; Wichmann, H.‐Erich; Bauer, Carl‐P.; Reinhardt, Dietrich; Berdel, Dietrich; Gerber, Andreas
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2012
  • Erschienen in: Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 23 (2012) 6, Seite 597-604
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2012.01304.x
  • ISSN: 1399-3038; 0905-6157
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: To cite this article:Mertens J, Stock S, Lüngen M, Berg AV, Krämer U, Filipiak‐Pittroff B, Heinrich J, Koletzko S, Grübl A, Wichmann H‐E, Bauer C‐P, Reinhardt D, Berdel D, Gerber A. Is Prevention of Atopic Eczema with Hydrolyzed Formulas Cost‐Effective? A Health Economic Evaluation from Germany.Pediatr Allergy Immunol2012:23: 597–604.AbstractObjective: 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.