ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Atopic/chemically induced , Dermatitis, Atopic/economics , Infant Formula , Milk Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Milk Proteins/chemistry , Animals , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Cost of Illness , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Markov Chains , Milk/adverse effects , Models, Theoretical , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome , Whey ProteinsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe atopic dermatitis (AD) management patterns in children ≤36 months old as reported by pediatricians, dermatologists, and allergists in the US. STUDY DESIGN: A nationally-representative survey was administered to pediatricians (n = 101), dermatologists (n = 26), and allergists (n = 26). Main outcomes included referrals to health care professionals, suggested/ordered laboratory tests, management approach (dietary, pharmacologic, or combination of both) by age, AD location, and severity. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in referrals to healthcare professionals (P < .001). Pediatricians more frequently referred to dermatologists than allergists in mild (52.4% vs 32.0%) and moderate/severe (60.6% vs 38.1%) cases. Dermatologists referred to allergists less frequently for mild (9.1%) than moderate/severe (40.7%) AD cases. Pediatricians (59%), allergists (61.5%), and dermatologists (26.9%) reported treating at least some of their patients with AD with dietary management (infant formula change) alone (with or without emollients). Soy-based formulas were often used. For mild AD, the most commonly reported first-line pharmacologic treatments included topical emollients, topical corticosteroids, and barrier repair topical therapy/medical devices. Over 80% of physicians used a dietary and pharmacologic combination approach. Dermatologists were most likely to manage AD symptoms with a pharmacologic-only approach. AD lesion location influenced pharmacologic treatment in >80% of physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Significant and distinct differences in AD treatment approach exist among physicians surveyed. Most pediatricians and allergists use formula change as a management strategy in some patients, whereas dermatologists favor a pharmacologic approach. This diversity may result from inadequate evidence for a standard approach. Consistent methods for managing AD are needed.