Influence of breast milk, soy or two hydrolyzed formulas on the development of allergic manifestations in infants at risk

Infant Formulas With Partially or Extensively Hydrolyzed Milk Proteins for the Prevention of Allergic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Despite the widely recommended usage of partially hydrolyzed formula (PHF) or extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) of milk protein for preventing allergic diseases (ADs), clinical studies have been inconclusive regarding their efficacy compared with that of cow's milk formula (CMF) or breast milk (BM). We aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of PHF or EHF compared with those of CMF or BM on risk of ADs (cow's milk allergy, allergic rhinitis, eczema, asthma, wheeze, food allergy, and sensitization) in children. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for clinical trials published from inception to 21 October, 2022. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grade the strength of evidence. Overall, 24 trials (10,950 infants) were included, 17 of which specifically included high-risk infants. GRADE was low for the evidence that, compared with CMF, infants early fed with EHF had lower risk of cow's milk allergy at age 0-2 y [relative risk (RR): 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.99]. Moderate evidence supported that PHF and EHF reduced risk of eczema in children aged younger or older than 2 y, respectively (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.96; and RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.94, respectively). We also identified moderate systematic evidence indicating that PHF reduced risk of wheeze at age 0-2 y compared with CMF (RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.85), but PHF and EHF increased the risk compared with BM (RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.31; and RR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.26, 2.14). Neither PHF nor EHF had significant effects on other ADs in children of any age. In conclusion, compared with CMF, PHF, or EHF had different preventive effect on cow's milk allergy, eczema, and wheeze. Compared with BM, both PHF and EHF may increase risk of wheeze but not other ADs. Given that most trials included only high-risk infants, more research on non-high-risk infants is warranted before any generalization is attempted. This protocol was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022320787.

Health Implications of Bioactive Peptides: A Review

Abstract. Today, due to immobility, improper food habits, and changes in lifestyle, communities are faced with an increase in health problems such as blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, and thrombosis. Bioactive peptides are considered as being the main products of protein hydrolysis which exert high effects on the nervous, immune, and gastrointestinal systems. Unlike synthetic drugs, bioactive peptides have no side effects and this advantage has qualified them as an alternative to such drugs. Due to the above-mentioned properties, this paper focuses on the study of health-improving attributes of bioactive peptides such as anti-oxidative, anti-hypertensive, immunomodulatory, anti-microbial, anti-allergenic, opioid, anti-thrombotic, mineral-binding, anti-inflammatory, hypocholesterolemic, and anti-cancer effects. We also discuss the formation of bioactive peptides during fermentation, the main restrictions on the use of bioactive peptides and their applications in the field of functional foods. In general, food-derived biologically active peptides play an important role in human health and may be used in the development of novel foods with certain health claims.

Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease

BACKGROUND

Infant formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been widely advocated for preventing allergic disease in infants, in place of standard cow's milk formula (CMF). However, it is unclear whether the clinical trial evidence supports this.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergic disease when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk. If hydrolysed formulas are effective, to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective, including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula (EHF/PHF). To determine whether infants at low or high risk of allergic disease, and whether infants receiving early short-term (first few days after birth) or prolonged formula feeding benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1948 to 3 November 2017), and Embase (1974 to 3 November 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles and previous reviews for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared use of a hydrolysed formula versus human milk or CMF. Outcomes with ≥ 80% follow-up of participants from eligible trials were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data from the included studies. Fixed-effect analyses were performed. The treatment effects were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals and quality of evidence using the GRADE quality of evidence approach. The primary outcome was all allergic disease (including asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis and food allergy).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days infant supplementation with an EHF while in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. A single study enrolling 90 infants reported no difference in all allergic disease (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.38 to 5.37) or any specific allergic disease up to childhood including cow's milk allergy (CMA) (RR 7.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 143.84). A single study reported no difference in infant CMA (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.46; participants = 3559). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.No eligible trials compared prolonged hydrolysed formula versus human milk feeding.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days infant supplementation with an EHF versus a CMF. A single study enrolling 90 infants reported no difference in all allergic disease (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.33 to 5.71; participants = 77) or any specific allergic disease including CMA up to childhood. A single study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00; participants = 3473). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.Twelve studies assessed the effect of prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF. The data showed no difference in all allergic disease in infants (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; participants = 2852; studies = 8) and children (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; participants = 950; studies = 2), and no difference in any specific allergic disease including infant asthma (typical RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.04; participants = 318; studies = 4), eczema (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09; participants = 2896; studies = 9), rhinitis (typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.85; participants = 256; studies = 3), food allergy (typical RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.33; participants = 479; studies = 2), and CMA (RR 2.31, 95% CI 0.24 to 21.97; participants = 338; studies = 1). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergic disease. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA. Further trials are recommended before implementation of this practice.We found no evidence to support prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for prevention of allergic disease in infants unable to be exclusively breast fed.

WITHDRAWN: Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Allergy is common and may be associated with foods, including cow's milk formula (CMF). Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy. However, it is unclear whether hydrolysed formulas can be advocated for prevention of allergy in infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergy and food allergy when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk. If hydrolysed formulas are effective, to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective, including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula (EHF/PHF). To determine which infants at low or high risk of allergy and which infants receiving early, short-term or prolonged formula feeding may benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group supplemented by cross referencing of previous reviews and publications (updated August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared use of a hydrolysed formula versus human milk or CMF. Trials with ≥ 80% follow-up of participants were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergy and food allergy. We conducted meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (FE) model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days' infant supplementation with an EHF whilst in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. Results showed no difference in infant allergy or childhood cow's milk allergy (CMA). No eligible trials compared prolonged hydrolysed formula versus human milk feeding.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days infant supplementation with an EHF versus a CMF. One large quasi-random study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance among low-risk infants (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.00).Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was associated with a reduction in infant allergy (eight studies, 2852 infants; FE RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100) and infant CMA (two studies, 405 infants; FE RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86). We had substantial methodological concerns regarding studies and concerns regarding publication bias, as substantial numbers of studies including those in high-risk infants have not comprehensively reported allergy outcomes (GRADE quality of evidence 'very low').Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was not associated with a difference in childhood allergy and led to no differences in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy. Many of the analyses assessing specific allergy are underpowered.Subroup analyses showed that infant allergy was reduced in studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy who used a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF. Studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF found a reduction in infant CMA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergy. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA.In infants at high risk of allergy not exclusively breast fed, very low-quality evidence suggests that prolonged hydrolysed formula feeding compared with CMF feeding reduces infant allergy and infant CMA. Studies have found no difference in childhood allergy and no difference in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy.Very low-quality evidence shows that prolonged use of a partially hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for partial or exclusive feeding was associated with a reduction in infant allergy incidence and CMA incidence, and that prolonged use of an EHF versus a PHF reduces infant food allergy.

Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Allergy is common and may be associated with foods, including cow's milk formula (CMF). Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy. However, it is unclear whether hydrolysed formulas can be advocated for prevention of allergy in infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergy and food allergy when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk. If hydrolysed formulas are effective, to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective, including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula (EHF/PHF). To determine which infants at low or high risk of allergy and which infants receiving early, short-term or prolonged formula feeding may benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group supplemented by cross referencing of previous reviews and publications (updated August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared use of a hydrolysed formula versus human milk or CMF. Trials with ≥ 80% follow-up of participants were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergy and food allergy. We conducted meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (FE) model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days' infant supplementation with an EHF whilst in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. Results showed no difference in infant allergy or childhood cow's milk allergy (CMA). No eligible trials compared prolonged hydrolysed formula versus human milk feeding.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days' infant supplementation with an EHF versus a CMF. One large quasi-random study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance among low-risk infants (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.00).Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was associated with a reduction in infant allergy (eight studies, 2852 infants; FE RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100) and infant CMA (two studies, 405 infants; FE RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86). We had substantial methodological concerns regarding studies and concerns regarding publication bias, as substantial numbers of studies including those in high-risk infants have not comprehensively reported allergy outcomes (GRADE quality of evidence 'very low').Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was not associated with a difference in childhood allergy and led to no differences in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy. Many of the analyses assessing specific allergy are underpowered.Subroup analyses showed that infant allergy was reduced in studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy who used a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF. Studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF found a reduction in infant CMA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergy. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA.In infants at high risk of allergy not exclusively breast fed, very low-quality evidence suggests that prolonged hydrolysed formula feeding compared with CMF feeding reduces infant allergy and infant CMA. Studies have found no difference in childhood allergy and no difference in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy.Very low-quality evidence shows that prolonged use of a partially hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for partial or exclusive feeding was associated with a reduction in infant allergy incidence and CMA incidence, and that prolonged use of an EHF versus a PHF reduces infant food allergy.

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Background

Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG).

Objective

To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases.

Design

Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, two pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three feasibility studies, two core outcome initiatives, four funding proposals for national RCTs and one completed national RCT.

Setting

Secondary care, primary care and the general population.

Participants

Patients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease.

Interventions

Our three intervention studies included (1) barrier enhancement using emollients from birth to prevent eczema (pilot RCT); (2) handheld narrowband ultraviolet light B therapy for treating vitiligo (pilot RCT); and (3) oral ciclosporin (Neoral®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) compared with oral prednisolone for managing PG (pragmatic national RCT).

Results

Systematic reviews included two overarching systematic reviews of RCTs of treatments for eczema and vitiligo, an umbrella review of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of eczema, two reviews of treatments for SCC (one included RCTs and the second included observational studies), and three reviews of outcome measures and outcome reporting. Three prioritisation partnership exercises identified 26 priority areas for future research in eczema, vitiligo and SCC. Two international consensus initiatives identified four core domains for future eczema trials and seven core domains for vitiligo trials. Two pilot RCTs and three feasibility studies critically informed development of four trial proposals for external funding, three of which are now funded and one is pending consideration by funders. Our pragmatic RCT tested the two commonly used systemic treatments for PG (prednisolone vs. ciclosporin) and found no difference in their clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Both drugs showed limited benefit. Only half of the participants’ ulcers had healed by 6 months. For those with healed ulcers, recurrence was common (30%). Different side effect profiles were noted for each drug, which can inform clinical decisions on an individual patient basis. Three researchers were trained to PhD level and a dermatology patient panel was established to ensure patient involvement in all aspects of the programme.

Conclusions

Findings from this programme of work have already informed clinical guidelines and patient information resources. Feasibility studies have ensured that large national pragmatic trials will now be conducted on important areas of treatment uncertainty that address the needs of patients and the NHS. There is scope for considerable improvement in terms of trial design, conduct and reporting for RCTs of skin disease, which can be improved through wider collaboration, registration of trial protocols and complete reporting and international consensus over core outcome sets. Three national trials have now been funded as a result of this work. Two international initiatives to establish how best to measure the core outcome domains for eczema and vitiligo are ongoing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) (ISRCTN84854178 and NCT01142999), Study of Treatments fOr Pyoderma GAngrenosum Patients (STOP GAP) (ISRCTN35898459) and Hand Held NB-UVB for Early or Focal Vitiligo at Home (HI-Light Pilot Trial) (NCT01478945).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

How should an incident case of atopic dermatitis be defined? A systematic review of primary prevention studies

BACKGROUND

Eczema prevention is now an active area of dermatologic and allergy research. Defining an incident case is therefore a prerequisite for such a study.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine how an incident case of atopic dermatitis was defined in previous atopic dermatitis prevention studies in order to make recommendations on a standard definition of new atopic dermatitis cases for use in future prevention trials.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of controlled interventional atopic dermatitis prevention studies by using searches of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases for studies published from 1980 to the end of January 2011. Studies that included atopic dermatitis as a secondary outcome, such as asthma prevention trials, were included.

RESULTS

One hundred two studies were included in the final analysis, of which 27 (26.5%) did not describe any criteria for defining an incident case of atopic dermatitis. Of the remaining 75 studies with reported disease criteria, the Hanifin-Rajka criteria were the most commonly used (28 studies). A disease definition unique to that particular study (21 studies) was the second most commonly used disease definition, although the sources for such novel definitions were not cited.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this systematic review highlight the need for improved reporting and standardization of the definition used for an incident case in atopic dermatitis prevention studies. Most prevention studies have used disease definitions such as the Hanifin-Rajka criteria that include disease chronicity. While acceptable for cumulative incidence outcomes, inclusion of disease chronicity precludes the precise measurement of disease onset. We propose a definition based on existing scientific studies that could be used in future prospective studies.

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

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.

Meta-analysis of a partially hydrolysed 100%-whey infant formula vs. extensively hydrolysed infant formulas in the prevention of atopic dermatitis

OBJECTIVES

This study presents previously unpublished point and cumulative incidence rates and relative risks (RRs) for comparing a partially hydrolysed 100% whey-based infant formula, NAN-HA * (PHF-W) to extensively hydrolysed whey- (EHF-Whey) or casein-based (EHF-Casein) infant formulas in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) in infants who cannot be breastfed exclusively. It also outlines methods to convert the above-mentioned data as well as data comparing PHF-W to cows' milk formula (SF) into inputs to be applied to a pharmacoeconomic model. * NAN-HA is a registered trade name of Nestlé SA, Switzerland.

METHODS

The incidence rates and RRs were obtained from a meta-analysis which analysed efficacy for PHF-W vs. EHF but did not present those. It took into consideration any relevant randomized controlled trial which compared the use of PHF-W with SF or EHF for the prevention of allergies. The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence, cumulative incidence and period prevalence of allergic manifestations and of AD in particular. Fifteen studies had been included for analysis of which six studies explored PHF-W vs. EHF. These results and PHF-W vs. SF data were adapted for inputs into a pharmacoeconomic model which used a spreadsheet decision-analytic economic model based on 3-month cycles to explore the cost-effectiveness of PHF-W vs. SF and EHF. Weights were applied to the incidence rates and RRs for each reported time period which were then adapted into 3-month indicators.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis for PHF-W (557 patients) vs. EHF-Whey (559 patients) yielded RR of 0.75 (0.54, 1.05) and 0.80 (0.63, 1.02) at 0-12 months and at 0-36 months, respectively. Corresponding RRs for PHF-W vs. EHF-Casein (580 patients) were 1.06 (0.74, 1.53) at 0-12 months and 1.13 (0.87, 1.47) at 0-36 months.

CONCLUSION

It appears that the efficacy of PHF-W falls within the range of that of both EHF formulas (whey and casein) and allows the application of these results in a pharmacoeconomic model.

Meta-analysis of the evidence for a partially hydrolyzed 100% whey formula for the prevention of allergic diseases

OBJECTIVE

Infants with a documented hereditary risk of atopy (i.e., an affected parent and/or sibling) who cannot be breastfed exclusively are recommended to receive a formula with confirmed reduced allergenicity, i.e., a partially or extensively hydrolyzed formula (pHF and eHF, respectively), as a means of preventing allergic reactions. The efficacy of each hydrolyzed formula for the prevention of allergic diseases should be established separately, as factors such as the protein source, hydrolysis method and degree of hydrolysis that often depend on the manufacturer contribute to differences among hydrolysates. The aim was to systematically review data on the efficacy of a partially hydrolyzed 100% whey formula (pHF) in reducing the risk of allergy in healthy infants at high risk for allergy.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were searched in September 2009 (from inception to September 2009) for randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs); additional references were obtained from reviewed articles. The company that manufactures the pHF used was contacted for unpublished data.

RESULTS

The search yielded 84 citations. Fifteen RCTs were included, some of which had potential methodological limitations such as unclear or inadequate allocation concealment, no intention-to-treat analysis, and no true blinding. For primary outcomes, i.e., all allergic diseases and atopic eczema/atopic dermatitis, use of the pHF compared with standard formula (SF) was associated with reduced risks (incidence, cumulative incidence, period prevalence) that were statistically significant for most, albeit not all, time points. Comparison of groups who received the pHF versus extensively hydrolyzed (eH) whey formula revealed no significant differences in outcomes except for reductions in the cumulative incidences of all allergic diseases at 0 to 36 months of age. Comparison of groups who received the pHF versus eH casein formula revealed no significant difference in outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the pHF compared to SF is effective in allergy prevention in children at high risk for allergy at most time points. These results should be interpreted with caution due to a lack of methodological rigor in many trials. Reassuringly, the strongest evidence comes from a well-designed and conducted, independently funded RCT.

What is "high risk?" a systematic review of atopy risk and implications for primary prevention

Atopic diseases are common and becoming more prevalent. Efforts have focused on primary disease prevention by identifying high-risk children and applying preventative strategies. Our aim was to evaluate methods used to identify high-risk children in atopy prevention studies. A literature search for relevant articles published between 1986 and 2006 was conducted, and all abstracts were reviewed. The search yielded 1,535 publications, 133 were reviewed in detail, and 57 met inclusion criteria. High risk was defined by 30 different methods. First-degree relatives with an atopic disorder were included in all methods, but only three publications used referenced questionnaires to determine this. Less frequently included were cord blood immunoglobulin E measurements and skin prick or radioallergosorbent testing, and 16 methods relied on history alone. Family history was the most common method used to predict high risk of atopic disease in a child, but a minority of studies used a tested questionnaire to determine the presence of atopy in family members. The methods used to identify high-risk children are variable, and the development and widespread use of a validated, practical screening tool is needed.

WITHDRAWN: Cow's milk protein avoidance and development of childhood wheeze in children with a family history of atopy

BACKGROUND

In infants with a family history of atopy, food allergen avoidance has been advocated as means of preventing the development of atopic disease, when breast-feeding is not possible or supplemental feeding is needed. Most infant formulas are based on cow's milk protein. Alternative choices include soya based and hydrolysed cows milk formulas.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effect of dietary avoidance of cow's milk protein on the development of asthma or wheeze in children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane database for eligible trials until February 2002. We obtained the full text papers of all abstracts identified as RCTs and two reviewers independently reviewed them.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving children with a family history of atopy in at least one first degree relative, if feeding with cow's milk based standard formula was compared to dietary avoidance of cow's milk protein, using soya or other hypoallergenic formula during the initial four months of life or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data independently. A priori defined subgroups were the types of hypoallergenic artificial feed and dietary restrictions on mother and/or child's diet.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials used hydrolysed formula for at least four months, in addition to dietary restrictions and in some cases dust-mite reduction measures. The risk of infants experiencing asthma or wheeze during the first year of life was reduced compared to standard cow's milk based formula (Relative Risk 0.40, 95% Confidence Intervals 0.19 to 0.85). Feeding soya-based formula as opposed to standard cow's milk formula did not reduce the risk of having asthma or wheeze at any age.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Breast-milk should remain the feed of choice for all babies. In infants with at least one first degree relative with atopy, hydrolysed formula for a minimum of four months combined with dietary restrictions and environment measures may reduce the risk of developing asthma or wheeze in the first year of life. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that soya-based milk formula has any benefit.

Soy formula for prevention of allergy and food intolerance in infants

BACKGROUND

Allergies and food reactions in infants and children are common and may be associated with a variety of foods including adapted cow's milk formula. Soy based formulas have been used to treat infants with allergy or food intolerance. However, it is unclear whether they can help prevent allergy and food intolerance in infants without clinical evidence of allergy or food intolerance.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of feeding adapted soy formula compared to human milk, cow's milk formula or a hydrolysed protein formula on preventing allergy or food intolerance in infants without clinical evidence of allergy or food intolerance.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. Updated searches were performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966-March 2006), EMBASE (1980-March 2006), CINAHL (1982-March 2006) and previous reviews including cross references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compare the use of an adapted soy formula to human milk, an adapted cow's milk or a hydrolysed protein formula for feeding infants without clinical allergy or food intolerance in the first six months of life. Only trials with > 80% follow up of participants and reported in group of assignment were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction were assessed independently by each review author. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergies and food intolerance. Where no heterogeneity of treatment effect was found, the fixed effect model was used for meta-analysis. Where significant or apparent heterogeneity was found, results were reported using the random effects model and potential causes of the heterogeneity were sought.

MAIN RESULTS

Three eligible studies enrolling high risk infants with a history of allergy in a first degree relative were included. No eligible study enrolled infants fed human milk. No study examined the effect of early, short term soy formula feeding. All compared prolonged soy formula to cow's milk formula feeding. One study was of adequate methodology and without unbalanced allergy preventing co-interventions in treatment groups. One study with unclear allocation concealment and 19.5% losses reported a significant reduction in infant allergy, asthma and allergic rhinitis. However, no other study reported any significant benefits from the use of a soy formula. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in childhood allergy incidence (2 studies; typical RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37, 1.44). No significant difference was reported in one study in infant asthma (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86, 1.40), infant eczema (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95, 1.52), childhood eczema prevalence (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.73, 1.68), infant rhinitis (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76, 1.16) or childhood rhinitis prevalence (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73, 2.00). Meta-analysis found no significant difference in childhood asthma incidence (3 studies, 728 infants; typical RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26, 1.92), childhood eczema incidence (2 studies, 283 infants; typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.90, 2.75) or childhood rhinitis incidence (2 studies, 283 infants; typical RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.06, 8.00). One study reported no significant difference in infant CMPI (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45, 2.62), infant CMA (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.24, 4.86), childhood soy protein allergy incidence (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.36, 29.17) and urticaria. No study compared soy formula to hydrolysed protein formula.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Feeding with a soy formula cannot be recommended for prevention of allergy or food intolerance in infants at high risk of allergy or food intolerance. Further research may be warranted to determine the role of soy formulas for prevention of allergy or food intolerance in infants unable to be breast fed with a strong family history of allergy or cow's milk protein intolerance.

Dietary prevention of allergic diseases in infants and small children. Part III: Critical review of published peer-reviewed observational and interventional studies and final recommendations

The role of primary prevention of allergic diseases has been a matter of debate for the last 40 years. In order to shed some light on this issue, a group of experts of the Section of Pediatrics EAACI reviewed critically the existing literature on the subject. An analysis of published peer-reviewed observational and interventional studies was performed following the statements of evidence as defined by WHO. The results of the analysis indicate that breastfeeding is highly recommended for all infants irrespective of atopic heredity. A dietary regimen is unequivocally effective in the prevention of allergic diseases in high-risk children. In these patients breastfeeding combined with avoidance of solid food and cow's milk for at least 4-6 months is the most effective preventive regimen. In the absence of breast milk, formulas with documented reduced allergenicity for at least 4-6 months should be used.

Therapeutic modalities for cow's milk allergy

OBJECTIVE

To discuss current therapeutic modalities for cow's milk allergy and its prevention.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The sources of data include original clinical studies carried out at Ste. Justine Hospital, as well as a systematic search of the published English and French language scientific literature restricted to human subjects using computerized searches (National Public Library of Medicine, Cochrane Database Systems Review) from 1997 to 2002. Search terms for article retrieval included food allergy, milk allergy, therapy, and prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

The therapy of food allergies depends upon an accurate diagnosis, which remains a challenge in non--IgE-mediated cases. Dietary exclusion remains the mainstay of therapy, with medications reserved for exceptional patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that pancreatic enzyme supplementation may be of benefit for cases with multiple food allergies and severe eczema. Hydrolysate formula use is currently recommended for dietary allergy prevention in infants at an increased risk when maternal milk is insufficient or unavailable. The use of partially hydrolyzed formulas to prevent allergic disorders, including atopic dermatitis, is supported by clinical studies, but cannot be used in the already sensitized, milk-allergic child. Probiotics show enormous potential in preventing food allergic disorders as well.

Food allergy

Allergic disease is a major contributor to illnesses and mortality worldwide. Food hypersensitivity is often the first phenomenon in the allergic march that includes gastroenteropathy, eczema, asthma and hay fever. Recent evidence indicates that prevention of food hypersensitivity in early life is associated with reduction in the incidence of eczema and asthma in later childhood. Strategies for prevention include exclusive breast feeding, restriction of mother's diet during lactation, hydrolyzed formula, delayed introduction of allergenic solid foods and reduced exposure to house dust mites and tobacco smoke. This is a highly cost-beneficial and cost-effective approach.

Cow's milk protein avoidance and development of childhood wheeze in children with a family history of atopy

BACKGROUND

In infants with a family history of atopy, food allergen avoidance has been advocated as means of preventing the development of atopic disease when breast-feeding is not possible or supplemental feeding is needed. Most infant formulas are based on cow's milk protein. Alternative choices include soya based and hydrolysed cows milk formulas.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effect of dietary avoidance of cow's milk protein on the development of asthma or wheeze in children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane database was searched for eligible trials until February 2002. The full text papers of all abstracts identified as RCTs were obtained and reviewed independently by two reviewers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving children with a family history of atopy in at least one first degree relative were considered if feeding with cow's milk based standard formula was compared to dietary avoidance of cow's milk protein using soya or other hypoallergenic formula during the initial four months of life or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data independently. A priori defined subgroups were the types of hypoallergenic artificial feed and dietary restrictions on mother and/or child's diet.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials used hydrolysed formula for at least 4 months in addition to dietary restrictions and in some cases dust-mite reduction measures. The risk of infants experiencing asthma or wheeze during the first year of life was reduced compared to standard cow's milk based formula (Relative Risk =0.40, 95% Confidence Intervals 0.19, 0.85). Feeding soya-based formula as opposed to standard cow's milk formula did not reduce the risk of having asthma or wheeze at any age.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Breast-milk should remain the feed of choice for all babies. In infants with at least one first degree relative with atopy, hydrolysed formula for a minimum of 4 months combined with dietary restrictions and environment measures may reduce the risk of developing asthma or wheeze in the first year of life. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that soya-based milk formula has any benefit.