OBJECTIVES: Pharmacoeconomic analyses (PEs) were performed in five European countries to determine costs, consequences and cost effectiveness of a partially hydrolysed 100% whey-based infant formula, manufactured by Nestlé S.A, Switzerland (PHF-W) in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) in ‘at risk’ children when compared to standard cow’s milk formula (SF) or extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF).  METHODS: The PEs were performed in France, Germany, Spain, Denmark and Switzerland, using decision-analytic models depicting AD treatment pathways, as well as resource utilisation and costs associated with the treatment of AD in healthy yet ‘at risk’ newborns who could not be exclusively breastfed. A time horizon of 12 months including 6 months of formula consumption was applied, with country-specific resource use and costs. In four settings, SF was the main comparator and the final outcome of the PEs was the incremental cost per avoided case (ICER) of AD when comparing subjects who used PHF-W versus SF.  Given a lack in significant differences in efficacy between PHF-W and EHF, a cost-minimization approach was used in all settings to compare these formulas. Three perspectives were applied: the Ministry of Health (MOH), the family and society. RESULTS: The analyses of PHF-W vs. SF generated ICERs ranging from €801 to €1343 (MOH), from -€1796 to -€454 (family) and from -€995 to €719 (society). The costs of formula and time loss were the most important cost drivers. In the analyses of PHF-W versus EHF in prevention, PHF-W demonstrated savings ranging from €4-€120 million, or €1.3-€64 million for the MOH perspective. The robustness of the models and the direction of the results were confirmed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In five European countries, PHF-W appears to be the product best positioned in prevention at a reasonable cost when compared to SF and with important cost-savings versus EHF.