Suppr超能文献

基于乳清的 100%部分水解婴儿配方奶粉预防丹麦儿童特应性皮炎的经济学评价。

Economic evaluation of a 100% whey-based partially hydrolyzed infant formula in the prevention of atopic dermatitis among Danish children.

机构信息

PharmIdeas Research and Consulting Inc., Oakville, ON, Canada, PharmIdeas Europe SAS, Lyon, France, and Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.

出版信息

J Med Econ. 2012;15(2):394-408. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2011.650528. Epub 2012 Jan 17.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

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.

摘要

目的

进行药物经济学分析,以确定雀巢生产的部分水解 100%乳清配方(PHF-W)与高度水解配方(EHF-Whey 或 Casein)相比,在预防丹麦高危婴儿特应性皮炎(AD)方面的成本、结果和成本效益。

方法

由于 PHF-W 和 EHF 之间无显著差异,基础分析方法为成本最小化分析(CMA),报告了目标人群在配方消费期间购买配方的差异。然而,进行了敏感性分析(SA)以探索应用 PHF-W 和 EHF 的名义疗效,从而导致成本效益分析(CEA)。因此,基于 12 个月的时间范围,开发了一种经济模型,综合了治疗途径、资源利用以及目标人群中 AD 治疗相关的成本。SA 的最终经济结果是避免每例病例的增量成本(ICER),定义为 PHF-W 与 EHF 相比,每例 AD 避免病例的预期成本,从三个角度确定:卫生部(MOH)、受检者家庭和社会(SOC)。

结果

在基础案例 CMA 中,与 EHF 相比,PHF-W 为 MOH、家庭和 SOC 分别节省了 900 万丹麦克朗、2000 万丹麦克朗和 2900 万丹麦克朗。在敏感性 CEA 中,从所有角度来看,PHF-W 均优于 EHF-Whey,而 EHF-Casein 对 PHF-W 的吸引力不大,MOH、家庭和 SOC 的 ICER 分别为 315930 丹麦克朗、408407 丹麦克朗和 724337 丹麦克朗。概率敏感性分析表明,PHF-W 有 86%的可能性优于 EHF-Whey,而 EHF-Casein 则不可能优于 PHF-W。

结论

在一系列假设下,该分析表明,在不能或不能完全母乳喂养的高危丹麦婴儿中,PHF-W 预防 AD 的吸引力优于两种类型的 EHF。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验