Cost comparison between powdered versus energy dense infant formula for undernourished children in a hospital setting

•A barrier to the use of ready to use (RTU) infant formula is the perceived high cost.•We show enriched powdered infant formula (PIF) cost €16.52–€19.61 vs. €12.51 of RTU formula.•Using RTU infant formula is more cost effective than using an enriched PIF.

SummaryBackground & aimsReady to use (RTU) infant formulas became available for use in South African hospitals in 2005. However, a major barrier to use these formulae has been the perceived high product cost compared to the product cost of powdered infant formula (PIF). The aim of this cost comparative analysis was to determine the entire cost of these two feeding models.MethodsThis retrospective cost analysis used patient data generated from the Red Cross War Memorial Children Hospital (RCWMH), Cape Town, South Africa from 2007 to 2008. The annual cost of administering an energy dense RTU infant feed was compared to a fortified PIF, using published data of undernutrition at 34%. Only direct costs associated with the preparation and delivery were included in the analysis.ResultsThe fortified PIF versus RTU for 1 day per undernourished child cost 16.52 Euros and 19.61 Euros for the enriched PIF with sunflower and MCT oil respectively, versus the cost of the energy dense RTU feed of 12.51 Euros per day.ConclusionsThe decision to feed undernourished infants with enriched PIF versus energy dense RTU feed should not be based not only on the cost of the product, but also the hidden costs, as shown by this publication.