Zug-frauenfeld nutritional survey (“ZUFF study”): Allergen-reduced nutrition in a normal infant population and its health-related effects: Results at the age of six months

The Risk Reduction Effect of a Nutritional Intervention With a Partially Hydrolyzed Whey-Based Formula on Cow's Milk Protein Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis in High-Risk Infants Within the First 6 Months of Life: The Allergy Reduction Trial (A.R.T.), a Multicenter Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study

Background

The role of partially hydrolyzed formulas (pHF) as part of nutritional interventions to prevent the development of allergic manifestations (AM) is questioned, and efficacy of each specific pHF should be substantiated.

Objective

To investigate the risk-reduction effect of a whey-based pHF on the development of cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) and atopic dermatitis (AD) in infants at high-risk for allergy within the first 6 months of life.

Materials and Methods

In a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled setting, healthy non-exclusively breastfed full-term infants, received either a specific whey-based pHF or a standard cow's milk-based formula (SF) and were clinically assessed for AM at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, supported by the objective scoring tools SCORAD and CoMiSS. CMPA was confirmed by open food challenge. Intention-to-Treat (ITT) and Per-Protocol (PP) analyses were performed.

Results

Of 331 randomized subjects (ITT analysis set), 160 received the pHF and 171 the SF. Six (3.8%) infants in the pHF and 12 (7%) in the SF group developed CMPA (p = 0.186). AD incidence was significantly lower in those receiving pHF as compared to SF (10.6% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.024) with a relative risk (RR, 95% CI) of 0.54 (0.32, 0.92), in particular when adjusting for family history of AD [6.5% vs. 27.3%, RR 0.24 (0.07, 0.78), p = 0.018] representing a risk reduction of 76%. The PP analysis showed similar results.

Conclusion

This specific whey-based pHF reduced the risk of AD development, particularly in those with a family history of AD, and tended to reduce the development of CMPA in non-exclusively breastfed infants at high-risk for allergy. The A.R.T. study suggests that this particular pHF may contribute to measures aimed at prevention of allergic manifestations. However, further studies are needed to confirm this risk-reduction effect.

A new partially hydrolyzed whey-based follow-on formula with age-adapted protein content supports healthy growth during the first year of life

BACKGROUND

Standard infant formulae often have higher protein content than breastmilk in order to compensate for potentially lower digestibility; excess protein intake may promote adverse effects later in life. A new partially hydrolyzed whey-based (pHF-W) follow-on formula (FoF) with age-adapted protein content was evaluated for growth and gastrointestinal (GI) tolerance in healthy infants.

METHODS

Formula-fed (FF) infants (n = 108) received standard pHF-W formula (1.9 g protein/100 kcal) from enrollment (age ≤ 30 days) until age 120 days followed by new pHF-W FoF (1.6 g protein/100 kcal) until 360 days. Weight gain velocity (WGV) (mean daily WG from enrollment to age 180 days) was compared to WHO growth standards and a breastfed (BF) reference group (n = 86) (non-inferiority margin -3 g/day). GI tolerance was assessed using a validated questionnaire (scale range 13-65).

RESULTS

WGV in FF infants (mean ± SD 24.0 ± 4.4 g/day) was non-inferior to BF (23.7 ± 3.9 g/day) and WHO standards (all p ≤ 0.013). Weight-for-age, length-for-age, weight-for-length, and head circumference-for-age z-scores of FF infants were not significantly different from BF at any timepoint. Symptoms of GI intolerance were low (≤23) at all timepoints and similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

A new pHF-W FoF with age-adapted protein content fed sequentially after standard pHF-W infant formula is safe, well-tolerated, and promotes a healthy growth pattern consistent with BF infants and WHO standards during the first year of life.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [NCT03276663].

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.

FDA's health claim review: whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula and atopic dermatitis

In this review, we explain how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used its evidence-based review system to evaluate the scientific evidence for a qualified health claim for 100% whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula (W-PHF) and reduced risk of atopic dermatitis (AD). The labeling of health claims, including qualified health claims, on conventional foods and dietary supplements require premarket approval by the FDA. Health claims characterize the relationship between a substance (food or food component) and disease (eg, cancer or cardiovascular disease) or health-related condition (eg, hypertension). To determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support the qualified health claim, the FDA evaluated human intervention studies that evaluated the role of W-PHF in reducing the risk of AD. The FDA concluded there is little to very little evidence, respectively, to support a qualified health claim concerning the relationship between intake of W-PHF and a reduced risk of AD in partially breastfed and exclusively formula-fed infants throughout the first year after birth and up to 3 years of age. In addition, the FDA required a warning statement be displayed along with the health claim to indicate to consumers that partially hydrolyzed infant formulas are not hypoallergenic and should not be fed to infants who are allergic to milk or to infants with existing milk allergy symptoms.

Partially hydrolyzed 100% whey protein infant formula and reduced risk of atopic dermatitis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A reduced risk of atopic dermatitis (AD) among healthy infants who received 100% whey protein partially hydrolyzed formula (PHF-W) compared with intact protein cow's milk formula (CMF), has been reported in several studies. To validate these observations and estimate the magnitude of this potential association with greater statistical precision, we conducted a meta-analysis of clinical trial and intervention studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 18 articles representing 12 independent study populations met our inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A statistically significant 44% (summary relative risk estimate [SRRE] = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.77) reduced risk of atopic manifestations, which included AD, was found among infants receiving PHF-W compared with infants receiving CMF. In a subanalysis of 4 studies that reported results specifically for AD and that were considered of superior methodological quality, the incidence of AD was reduced by 55% (SRRE = 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of study design, infant population, follow-up time, or study location, individual study findings were consistent because a reduced incidence of AD was reported in all of the reviewed studies. Exclusive breast-feeding should be encouraged as the standard for infant nutrition in the first months of life. For infants who are not exclusively breast-fed, feeding with PHF-W instead of CMF reduces the risk of AD in infants, particularly in infants with a family history of allergy.

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.