Title |
Relative cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula containing the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in managing infants with cow’s milk allergy in Spain
|
---|---|
Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, November 2015
|
DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s89347 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Julian F Guest, Diana Weidlich, J Ignacio Mascuñan Díaz, Juan J Díaz, Pedro Manuel Ojeda, J Pablo Ferrer-González, David Gil, Isabel Onrubia, Pedro Rincón Victor |
Abstract |
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula containing the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (eHCF + LGG; Nutramigen LGG) as a first-line management for cow's milk allergy compared with eHCF alone, and amino acid formulae in Spain, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (SNS). Decision modeling was used to estimate the probability of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated and non-IgE-mediated allergic infants developing tolerance to cow's milk by 18 months. The models also estimated the SNS cost (at 2012/2013 prices) of managing infants over 18 months after starting a formula as well as the relative cost-effectiveness of each of the formulae. The probability of developing tolerance to cow's milk by 18 months was higher among infants with either IgE-mediated or non-IgE-mediated allergy who were fed eHCF + LGG compared with those fed one of the other formulae. The total health care cost of initially feeding infants with eHCF + LGG was less than that of feeding infants with one of the other formulae. Hence, eHCF + LGG affords the greatest value for money to the SNS for managing both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. Using eHCF + LGG instead of eHCF alone or amino acid formulae for first-line management of newly-diagnosed infants with cow's milk allergy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded resources because it improves outcome for less cost. A randomized controlled study showing faster tolerance development in children receiving a probiotic-containing formula is required before this conclusion can be confirmed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 10 | 28% |
Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
Other | 2 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
Other | 8 | 22% |
Unknown | 7 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 22% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
Other | 3 | 8% |
Unknown | 12 | 33% |