Dataset Information

The Economic Impact of Donor Milk in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of mother's own milk supplemented with donor milk vs mother's own milk supplemented with formula for infants of very low birth weight in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Study design

A retrospective analysis of 319 infants with very low birth weight born before (January 2011-December 2012, mother's own milk + formula, n = 150) and after (April 2013-March 2015, mother's own milk + donor milk, n = 169) a donor milk program was implemented in the NICU. Data were retrieved from a prospectively collected research database, the hospital's electronic medical record, and the hospital's cost accounting system. Costs included feedings and other NICU costs incurred by the hospital. A generalized linear regression model was constructed to evaluate the impact of feeding era on NICU total costs, controlling for neonatal and sociodemographic risk factors and morbidities. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for each morbidity that differed significantly between feeding eras.

Results

Infants receiving mother's own milk + donor milk had a lower incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) than infants receiving mother's own milk + formula (1.8% vs 6.0%, P = .048). Total (hospital + feeding) median costs (2016 USD) were $169 555 for mother's own milk + donor milk and $185 740 for mother's own milk + formula (P = .331), with median feeding costs of $1317 and $936, respectively (P < .001). Mother's own milk + donor milk was associated with $15 555 lower costs per infant (P = .045) and saved $1812 per percentage point decrease in NEC incidence.

Conclusions

The additional cost of a donor milk program was small compared with the cost of a NICU hospitalization. After its introduction, the NEC incidence was significantly lower with small cost savings per case. We speculate that NICUs with greater NEC rates may have greater cost savings.

SUBMITTER: Johnson TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7484385 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Human milk (HM) is the ideal enteral feeding for nearly all infants and offers unique benefits to the very low birthweight (VLBW) infant population. It is a challenge to meet the high nutrient requirements of VLBW infants due to the known variability of HM composition. Human milk analysis (HMA) assesses the composition of HM and allows for individualized fortification. Due to recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, it has relatively recent availability for clinical use in the US. Aim: To identify current practices of HMA and individualized fortification in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) across the United States (US) and to inform future translational research efforts implementing this nutrition management method. Methods: An institutional review board (IRB) approved survey was created and collected data on the following subjects such as NICU demographics, feeding practices, HM usage, HM fortification practices, and HMA practices. It was distributed from 10/30-12/21/2020 via online pediatric nutrition groups and listservs selected to reach the intended audience of NICU dietitians and other clinical staff. Each response was assessed prior to inclusion, and descriptive analysis was performed. Results: About 225 survey responses were recorded during the survey period with 119 entries included in the analysis. This represented 36 states and Washington D.C., primarily from level III and IV NICUs. HMA was reported in 11.8% of responding NICUs. The most commonly owned technology for HMA is the Creamatocrit Plus TM (EKF Diagnostics), followed by the HM Analyzer by Miris (Uppsala, Sweden). In NICUs practicing HMA, 84.6% are doing so clinically. Discussion: Feeding guidelines and fortification of HM remain standard of care, and interest in HMA was common in this survey. Despite the interest, very few NICUs are performing HMA and individualized fortification. Barriers identified include determining who should receive individualized fortification and how often, collecting a representative sample, and the cost and personnel required. Conclusions: Human milk analysis and individualized fortification are emerging practices within NICUs in the US. Few are using it in the clinical setting with large variation in execution among respondents and many logistical concerns regarding implementation. Future research may be beneficial to evaluate how practices change as HMA and individualized fortification gain popularity and become more commonly used in the clinical setting.