OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of using oral food challenge test (OFC) to manage non-IgE-mediated gastrointestinal cow's milk protein allergy (non-IgE-GI-CMPA) in infants within the Brazilian public health system (SUS). METHOD: A decision model was developed to compare two strategies: 1. GUIDELINE-OFC: 100 % of physicians recommending OFC for diagnosis (D-OFC) and evaluation of oral tolerance (OT-OFC), and 2. REAL-WORLD-OFC: OFC performed according to the practices of pediatricians in Brazil (D-OFC indicated by 56 % and 45 % of physicians for mild-to-moderate and severe cases, respectively, and OT-OFC indicated by 93 % of physicians for both cases). The authors assumed that 10 % of parents would refuse the OFC and set the ages of 3.65 and 24 months for model admission and follow-up (time horizon), respectively. Clinical and epidemiological data, primarily from Brazil, data on public health costs, and a 5 % discount rate for both costs and outcomes were used. The effectiveness endpoint was the duration without a cow's milk elimination diet and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values of 0.84 (with allergy) and 0.94 (without allergy). RESULTS: GUIDELINE-OFC resulted in average savings of USD 241.98, a gain of +0.019 QALYs, and +70 days without a cow's milk elimination diet per patient. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, all cost-effectiveness and 96.5 % of cost-utility simulations demonstrated lower costs and greater effectiveness. Over five years, the public healthcare system would save USD 129 million. CONCLUSIONS: Using OFC in infants with non-IgE-GI-CMPA is a dominant strategy, yielding substantial savings for the SUS and potentially improving nutritional status and quality of life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodrigues et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: