Growth in preterm infants fed either a partially hydrolyzed whey or an intact casein/whey preterm infant formula

Growth and gut comfort of healthy term infants exclusively fed with a partially hydrolysed protein-based infant formula: a randomized controlled double-blind trial

Objective

This study aimed to investigate growth and gut comfort of healthy infants fed with a partially hydrolysed cow's milk protein-based infant formula (pHF) compared to a standard intact cow's milk protein-based formula (IPF).

Methods

A double-blind, multi-center, randomized, controlled trial was performed. Healthy full-term, exclusively formula-fed infants (n = 345), aged ≤28 days were allocated to consume either a pHF (n = 173) or an IPF (n = 172) until the age of 17 weeks. The primary outcome was equivalence of weight gain (g/d) until the age of 17 weeks. The secondary outcomes were equivalence of other growth parameters, i.e., infants' weight, length, head circumference, body mass index (BMI) and anthropometric Z-scores, while tertiary outcomes were gut comfort, formula intake, and adverse events (AEs).

Results

Overall, 288 infants completed the study (pHF group: 138, IPF group: 150). No differences were observed between the two groups in weight gain (g/d) during the three-months intervention [p = 0.915 for the Per Protocol (PP) population]. The 90% CI was [-1.252 to 1.100] being within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ±3.0 g/d. Similar findings were observed in the Full Analysis Set (FAS) and the sensitivity analysis. Regarding the secondary outcomes, no differences over the intervention period were shown between the two groups in both the PP and FAS analysis sets. Average Z-scores were in the normal range based on World Health Organization (WHO) growth standards for both groups at all time points in both analysis sets. Stool consistency, amount, and colour were different in the two groups. No differences were observed in gut comfort, stool frequency, and formula intake, between the two groups. In total 14 AEs and 22 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported of which 15 (12%) and 1 (5%) were considered as (possibly) related to the study product, respectively.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates that the consumption of pHF results in adequate infant growth, equivalent to that of infants consuming IPF. Furthermore, the overall gut comfort was comparable between the two groups. Therefore, it can be concluded that the pHF is safe for and well tolerated by healthy infants.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05757323?id=NCT05757323&rank=1, identifier (NCT05757323).

Safety and Suitability of Infant Formula Manufactured from Extensively Hydrolyzed Whey Protein Compared to Intact Protein: A Combined Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Studies

Our aim was to assess the nutritional safety and suitability of an infant formula manufactured from extensively hydrolyzed protein in comparison to infant formula manufactured from intact protein (both with low and standard protein content). We performed a combined analysis of raw data from two randomized infant feeding studies. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to determine the non-inferiority of daily weight gain (primary outcome; margin -3 g/day), with the intervention group as a fixed factor and geographic region, sex, and baseline weight as covariates (main model). The data of 346 infants exposed to the formula were included in the analysis. The sample size of the per-protocol analysis with 184 infants was too small to achieve sufficient statistical power. The lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (-0.807) of the mean group difference in daily weight gain (i.e., 2.22 g/day) was above the -3 g/day margin (full analysis set). Further anthropometric parameters did not differ between the infant formula groups throughout the study. Growth was comparable to breastfed infants. We conclude that the infant formula manufactured from extensively hydrolyzed protein meets infant requirements for adequate growth and does not raise any safety concerns.

Nutritional safety and suitability of a specific protein hydrolysate derived from a whey protein concentrate and used in an infant formula and follow-on formula manufactured from hydrolysed protein by FrieslandCampina Nederland B.V

The European Commission asked EFSA to deliver an opinion on the nutritional safety and suitability of a specific protein hydrolysate. It is derived from a whey protein concentrate and used in an infant and follow-on formula manufactured by FrieslandCampina Nederland B.V., which submitted a dossier to the European Commission to request an amendment of Regulation (EU) 2016/127 with respect to the protein sources that may be used in the manufacture of infant and/or follow-on formula. The protein hydrolysate under evaluation is sufficiently characterised with respect to the fraction of the hydrolysed protein. In the pertinent intervention study provided, an infant formula manufactured from the protein hydrolysate with a protein content of 2.4 g/100 kcal and consumed as the sole source of nutrition by infants for 3 months led to a growth equivalent to a formula manufactured from intact cow's milk protein with a protein content of 2.1 g/100 kcal. Data on gastrointestinal tolerance of the formula did not raise any concerns. No experimental data have been provided on the nutritional safety and suitability of this protein source in follow-on formula. Given that it is consumed with complementary foods and the protein source is nutritionally safe and suitable in an infant formula that is the sole source of nutrition of infants, the Panel considers that the protein hydrolysate is also a nutritionally safe and suitable protein source for use in follow-on formula. The Panel concludes that the protein hydrolysate under evaluation is a nutritionally safe and suitable protein source for use in infant and follow-on formula, as long as the formula in which it is used contains a minimum of 2.4 g/100 kcal protein and complies with the compositional criteria of Regulation (EU) 2016/127 and the amino acid pattern in its Annex IIIA.

Enteral Nutrition in Preterm Infants (2022): A Position Paper From the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition and Invited Experts

OBJECTIVES

To review the current literature and develop consensus conclusions and recommendations on nutrient intakes and nutritional practice in preterm infants with birthweight <1800 g.

METHODS

The European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Committee of Nutrition (CoN) led a process that included CoN members and invited experts. Invited experts with specific expertise were chosen to represent as broad a geographical spread as possible. A list of topics was developed, and individual leads were assigned to topics along with other members, who reviewed the current literature. A single face-to-face meeting was held in February 2020. Provisional conclusions and recommendations were developed between 2020 and 2021, and these were voted on electronically by all members of the working group between 2021 and 2022. Where >90% consensus was not achieved, online discussion meetings were held, along with further voting until agreement was reached.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of strong evidence for most nutrients and topics. The summary paper is supported by additional supplementary digital content that provide a fuller explanation of the literature and relevant physiology: introduction and overview; human milk reference data; intakes of water, protein, energy, lipid, carbohydrate, electrolytes, minerals, trace elements, water soluble vitamins, and fat soluble vitamins; feeding mode including mineral enteral feeding, feed advancement, management of gastric residuals, gastric tube placement and bolus or continuous feeding; growth; breastmilk buccal colostrum, donor human milk, and risks of cytomegalovirus infection; hydrolyzed protein and osmolality; supplemental bionutrients; and use of breastmilk fortifier.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide updated ESPGHAN CoN consensus-based conclusions and recommendations on nutrient intakes and nutritional management for preterm infants.

Effect of prophylactic use of hydrolyzed protein formula on gastrointestinal diseases and physical growth in preterm infants: a Meta analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the effect of prophylactic use of hydrolyzed protein formula on gastrointestinal diseases and physical development in preterm infants.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed in the databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Weipu, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials of the effect of prophylactic use of hydrolyzed protein formula on gastrointestinal diseases and physical growth in preterm infants. RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform a Meta analysis for the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 7 randomized controlled studies were included. The results of Meta analysis showed that compared with the whole protein formula, the prophylactic use of hydrolyzed protein formula could reduce the risk of neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis (RR=0.40, P=0.04) and feeding intolerance (RR=0.40, P=0.005), and had no significant effect on the growth of weight, length and head circumference (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the whole protein formula, the prophylactic use of hydrolyzed protein formula in preterm infants may reduce the occurrence of necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding intolerance, and can meet the nutrient requirement of physical development. However, the evidence is limited, and the results of this study cannot support the routine prophylactic use of hydrolyzed protein formula in preterm infants.

Semi-Elemental and Elemental Formulas for Enteral Nutrition in Infants and Children with Medical Complexity-Thinking about Cow's Milk Allergy and Beyond

Children with medical complexities, such as multi-system disorders and/or neurological impairments, often experience feeding difficulties and need enteral nutrition. They frequently have impaired motility and digestive-absorbing functions related to their underlying condition. If a cow's milk allergy (CMA) occurs as a comorbidity, it is often misdiagnosed, due to the symptoms' overlap. Many of the commercialized mixtures intended for enteral nutrition are composed of partially hydrolyzed cow's milk proteins, which are not suitable for the treatment of CMA; thus, the exclusion of a concomitant CMA is mandatory in these patients for obtaining symptoms relief. In this review, we focus on the use of elemental and semi-elemental formulas in children with neurological diseases and in preterm infants as clinical "models" of medical complexity. In children with neurodisabilities, when gastrointestinal symptoms persist despite the use of specific enteral formula, or in cases of respiratory and/or dermatological symptoms, CMA should always be considered. If diagnosis is confirmed, only an extensively hydrolyzed or amino-acid based formula, or, as an alternative, extensively hydrolyzed nutritionally adequate formulas derived from rice or soy, should be used. Currently, enteral formulas tailored to the specific needs of preterm infants and children with neurological impairment presenting concomitant CMA have not been marketed yet. For the proper monitoring of the health status of patients with medical complexity, multidisciplinary evaluation and involvement of the nutritional team should be promoted.

A systematic review of the definitions and prevalence of feeding intolerance in preterm infants

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Feeding intolerance (FI) is a common phenomenon experienced in preterm infants in neonatal intensive care units, as well as being a focus of many research studies into feeding methods, particularly in relation to comorbidities. There is no widely accepted definition of FI. This systematic review aimed to explore the range of definitions used for FI and provide an estimate of the prevalence amongst preterm infants.

METHODS

Searches were completed on MEDLINE (includes the Cochrane library), Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, NHS Evidence and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria; preterm infants in neonatal units, a clear definition of FI, >10 patients and be available in English language. Case reports were excluded.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included. Definitions of FI were inconsistent. Studies were grouped according to definition used into: Group A - measuring gastric residual volume (GRV) only; group B - GRV and abdominal distension (AD); group C - GRV, AD and gastrointestinal symptoms (GI) which included any of vomiting, bilious vomiting and blood in stool; group D- GRV and GI; group E - AD and GI; group F - GI only and group G - any other elements used. Meta-analysis demonstrated that prevalence of FI between groups varied from 15 to 30% with an overall prevalence of 27% (95% confidence interval 23-31%). Group A had the highest prevalence. Review of time to full enteral feed was performed (37 studies) which demonstrated a range of 11.3-18.3 days depending on which FI definition used.

DISCUSSION

Definitions of FI in research are inconsistent, a similar finding to that seen in studies in both paediatric and adult critical care populations. The difficulty of defining FI in the preterm population is the concern regarding necrotising enterocolitis, with some studies using an overlap in their definitions, despite differing pathophysiology and management. Due to the heterogeneity of data obtained in this review regarding definitions used, further robust research is required in order to conclude which elements which should be used to define FI in this population.

PROSPERO NUMBER

CRD42019155596. Registered November 2019.

Dietary management of infants and young children with feeding difficulties and unsatisfactory weight gain using a nutritionally complete hypercaloric infant formula. practical considerations from clinical cases

INTRODUCTION

A decrease in weight velocity and feeding difficulties in infants may be caused by an inadequate caloric intake and underlying medical conditions.

CASE DESCRIPTION

By focusing on four clinical cases, this article illustrates the temporary use of a special infant formula in orally-fed and enterally-fed infants with unsatisfactory weight gain and special medical conditions such as gastrointestinal and neurological disorders. The formula was a nutritionally complete hypercaloric infant formula containing partially hydrolyzed whey protein. It was used after full consideration of all feeding options including breastfeeding.

CONCLUSION

Implementing appropriate feeding behaviors, adapted to age and potential comorbidities, is an essential prerequisite for therapeutic management. The use of a nutritionally complete hypercaloric infant formula can be helpful to manage unsatisfactory weight gain and feeding difficulties in infants.

A Partially Hydrolyzed Whey Infant Formula Supports Appropriate Growth: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial

The aim of the current study was to investigate the effects of a partially hydrolyzed whey infant formula (PHF) on growth in healthy term infants as compared to a standard infant formula with intact protein (IPF). In a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial, a total of 163 healthy formula-fed infants, 55–80 days old, were recruited and randomly allocated to either the PHF (test) or the IPF (control) group. They were followed up for three months during which they were evaluated monthly on growth and development. In total, 21 infants discontinued the study, while 142 infants completed the study (test n = 72, control n = 70). The primary outcome was daily weight gain during the three months. Secondary outcomes included additional anthropometric indices at every timepoint over the intervention period. Daily weight gain during the three-month intervention period was similar in both groups with the lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) above the non-inferiority margin of −3 g/day [mean difference (95% CI) test vs. control: −0.474 (−2.460, 1.512) g/day]. Regarding secondary outcomes, i.e., infants’ weight, length, head circumference, body mass index (BMI), and their Z-scores, no differences were observed between the two groups at any time point. The PHF resulted in similar infant growth outcomes as the standard IPF. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the partially hydrolyzed whey infant formula supports adequate growth in healthy term infants.

Feeding Interventions for Infants with Growth Failure in the First Six Months of Life: A Systematic Review

(1) Introduction: Current evidence on managing infants under six months with growth failure or other nutrition-related risk is sparse and low quality. This review aims to inform research priorities to fill this evidence gap, focusing on breastfeeding practices. (2) Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Library for studies on feeding interventions that aim to restore or improve the volume or quality of breastmilk and breastfeeding when breastfeeding practices are sub-optimal or prematurely stopped. We included studies from both low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries. (3) Results: Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were from high-income countries (n = 35, 74.5%) and included infants who were at risk of growth failure at birth (preterm infants/small for gestational age) and newborns with early growth faltering. Interventions included formula fortification or supplementation (n = 31, 66%), enteral feeds (n = 8, 17%), cup feeding (n = 2, 4.2%), and other (n = 6, 12.8%). Outcomes included anthropometric change (n = 40, 85.1%), reported feeding practices (n = 16, 34%), morbidity (n = 11, 23.4%), and mortality (n = 5, 10.6%). Of 31 studies that assessed formula fortification or supplementation, 30 reported anthropometric changes (n = 17 no effect, n = 9 positive, n = 4 mixed), seven morbidity (n = 3 no effect, n = 2 positive, n = 2 negative), five feeding (n = 2 positive, n = 2 no effect, n = 1 negative), and four mortality (n = 3 no effect, n = 1 negative). Of eight studies that assessed enteral feed interventions, seven reported anthropometric changes (n = 4 positive, n = 3 no effect), five feeding practices (n = 2 positive, n = 2 no effect, n = 1 negative), four morbidity (n = 4 no effect), and one reported mortality (n = 1 no effect). Overall, interventions with positive effects on feeding practices were cup feeding compared to bottle-feeding among preterm; nasogastric tube feed compared to bottle-feeding among low birth weight preterm; and early progressive feeding compared to delayed feeding among extremely low birth weight preterm. Bovine/cow milk feeding and high volume feeding interventions had an unfavourable effect, while electric breast pump and Galactagogue had a mixed effect. Regarding anthropometric outcomes, overall, macronutrient fortified formula, cream supplementation, and fortified human milk formula had a positive effect (weight gain) on preterm infants. Interventions comparing human breastmilk/donor milk with formula had mixed effects. Overall, only human milk compared to formula intervention had a positive effect on morbidity among preterm infants, while none of the interventions had any positive effect on mortality. Bovine/cow milk supplementation had unfavourable effects on both morbidity and mortality. (4) Conclusion: Future research should prioritise low- and middle-income countries, include infants presenting with growth failure in the post-neonatal period and record effects on morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Shorter Time to Full Preterm Feeding Using Intact Protein Formula: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: This study was carried out to evaluate enteral feeding advancement and tolerance in preterm infants receiving one of two marketed formulas: intact protein preterm formula (IPF) or extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) for the first 14 feeding days. Methods: Primary outcome was days to full enteral feeding (≥140 mL/kg/day). Per protocol analyses included the following: all participants who met study entrance criteria and completed study feeding (primary) and those who received ≥75% enteral intake from study formula (subset). Mothers were encouraged to provide their breast milk. Results: Of the 65 enrolled (IPF: n = 32; EHF: n = 33), 60 completed study feeding per protocol (IPF: n = 30; EHF: n = 30), 37 (62%) received predominantly breast milk, and 23 (38%) received ≥75% study formula intake (IPF: n = 11; EHF: n = 12). No group differences were detected in tolerance measures. No necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) was reported. Median time to achievement of full enteral feeding was significantly shorter for the IPF vs. EHF group (day 10 vs. 14, p < 0.05) (subset analysis). Mean enteral intake significantly increased by day 14 for the IPF group (p < 0.05), reflecting group divergence as achieved feeding volumes increased. Conclusions: Results suggest shorter time to full enteral feeding and higher feeding volume achieved by study end in preterm infants receiving intact protein preterm formula versus extensively hydrolyzed formula.

Protein hydrolysate versus standard formula for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

When human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate, rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins), is often used because it is perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of feeding preterm infants hydrolysed formula (vs standard cow's milk formula) on risk of feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, and other morbidity and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2019); Ovid Embase (1980 to 28 January 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (28 January 2019), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 trials for inclusion in the review. All trials were small (total participants 665) and had various methodological limitations including uncertainty about methods to ensure allocation concealment and blinding. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of less than about 34 weeks' gestational age or with birth weight less than about 1750 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth restricted. Most trials found no effects on feed intolerance, assessed variously as mean pre-feed gastric residual volume, incidence of abdominal distension or other gastrointestinal signs of concern, or time taken to achieve full enteral feeds (meta-analysis was limited because studies used different measures). Meta-analysis showed no effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.34; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 5 trials, 385 infants) (low-certainty evidence; downgraded for imprecision and design weaknesses).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The identified trials provide only low-certainty evidence about the effects of feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard formula. Existing data do not support conclusions that feeding protein hydrolysate affects the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis. Additional large, pragmatic trials are needed to provide more reliable and precise estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Faster Gastric Emptying Is Unrelated to Feeding Success in Preterm Infants: Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between gastric emptying (GE) time and days to achievement of full enteral feeding (≥140 mL/kg/day) in preterm infants randomly assigned to receive one of two marketed study formulas for the first 14 feeding days: intact protein premature formula (IPF) or extensively hydrolyzed protein (EHF) formula. Methods: In this triple-blind, controlled, prospective, clinical trial, we report GE time (time to half-emptying, t_1/2) by real-time ultrasonography on Study Day 14, in preterm infants receiving IPF or EHF formula. The association between GE time and achievement of full enteral feeding was evaluated by Pearson correlation. Per-protocol populations for analysis included participants who (1) completed the study (overall) and (2) who received ≥ 75% study formula intake (mL/kg/day). Results: Median GE time at Day 14 was significantly faster for the EHF vs. IPF group overall and in participants who received ≥ 75% study formula intake (p ≤ 0.018). However, we demonstrated GE time had no correlation with the achievement of full enteral feeding (r = 0.08; p = 0.547). Conclusion: Feeding IP premature formula vs. EH formula was associated with shorter time to full enteral feeding. However, faster GE time did not predict feeding success and may not be a clinically relevant surrogate for assessing feeding tolerance.

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.

Growth, Gastrointestinal Tolerance and Stool Characteristics of Healthy Term Infants Fed an Infant Formula Containing Hydrolyzed Whey Protein (63%) and Intact Casein (37%): A Randomized Clinical Trial

To investigate whether healthy term infants, fed an infant formula containing hydrolyzed whey protein (HWP-F, hydrolyzed whey/intact casein =63/37), differ in growth, gastrointestinal tolerance and stool characteristics from those fed an infant formula containing intact whey protein (IWP-F, intact whey/intact casein =61/39) or breast milk. Healthy term infants, born within 14 days of the study’s commencement, were randomly assigned to be fed IWP-F or HWP-F until 13 weeks of age, and breast-fed (BF) infants were enrolled as a reference group. Anthropometric measurements, gastrointestinal tolerance indexes and stool characteristics were assessed at baseline, and 7 and 13 weeks of age. There were no significant differences in any growth measurements and the occurrence of crying, spit-up and difficult defecation among the three feeding groups during the study period. However, daily feeding frequency was consistently lower in the formula-fed infants than in the BF group throughout the study (p < 0.05), and infants in the HWP-F group consumed more formula than those in the IWP-F group at 7 and 13 weeks of age (p ≤ 0.002). The HWP-F-fed infants had more similar stool characteristics to the breast-fed infants than infants in the IWP-F group at 13 weeks of age, regardless of frequency, volume, color or consistency of stool. This study demonstrates that the HWP-F could support the normal growth of healthy term infants, to a comparable extent to that of breast-fed infants during the first three months of life. Moreover, stool characteristics of HWP-F-fed infants are much closer to breast-fed infants than IWP-F-fed infants, but no significant gastrointestinal tolerance improvement was observed in HWP-F group.

Protein hydrolysate versus standard formula for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

When human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins) are often used because they are perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of feeding preterm infants with hydrolysed formula (versus standard cow's milk formulas) on the risk of feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, and other morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to April 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 trials for inclusion in the review. All trials were small (total participants 665) and had various methodological limitations including uncertainty about methods to ensure allocation concealment and blinding. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of gestational age less than about 34 weeks or birth weight less than about 1750 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted. Most trials found no effects on feed intolerance assessed variously as mean prefeed gastric residual volume, incidence of abdominal distention or other concerning gastrointestinal signs, or time taken to achieve full enteral feeds (meta-analysis was limited because studies used different measures). Meta-analysis found no effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.34; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 5 trials, 385 infants) (low quality evidence; downgraded for imprecision and design weaknesses).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The identified trials provide only low quality evidence about the effects of feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard formula. The existing data did not support conclusions that feeding with protein hydrolysate affects the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis. Further large, pragmatic trials are needed to provide more reliable and precise estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

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.

Preterm formula use in the preterm very low birth weight infant

Whereas human milk is the recommended diet for all infants, preterm formulas are indicated for enteral feeding of preterm very low birth weight infants when sufficient maternal breast milk and donor human milk are not available. Feeding with preterm formulas helps to ensure consistent delivery of nutrients. The balance of risks and benefits of feeding preterm formulas versus supplemented maternal and donor breast milk for preterm infants, however, is uncertain. Numerous studies and extensive practice have shown improved growth with preterm formulas, but there is concern for increased risks of necrotizing enterocolitis, possibly from cow milk antigen in the formulas or from different gut microbiomes, increased duration of total parenteral nutrition, and increased rates of sepsis in infants receiving preterm formulas. Furthermore, whereas preterm formulas improve neurodevelopmental outcomes compared to term formulas and unfortified donor milk, they do not produce neurodevelopmental outcomes better than fortified human milk, again indicating that maternal milk has unique properties that formulas need to mimic as closely as possible.

Improving growth in preterm infants during initial hospital stay: principles into practice

Despite recent innovations in nutritional care, postnatal growth failure between birth and hospital discharge remains a significant problem in preterm infants. Whether or not it is entirely preventable is unclear. What is clear is that feeding practices and growth outcomes vary widely between neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). This partly reflects lack of data in key areas but it also reflects inconsistent translation of principles into practice and limitations in the way infants are fed and growth monitored in the NICU. These issues will be reviewed, in the process underline the key roles that audit, standardised feeding protocol, individualised nutritional care and a nutritional support team play in improving outcome in these high-risk infants.

Should Partial Hydrolysates Be Used as Starter Infant Formula? A Working Group Consensus

Partially hydrolyzed formulas (pHFs) are increasingly used worldwide, both in the prevention of atopic disease in at-risk infants and in the therapeutic management of infants with functional gastrointestinal manifestations. Because prevention is always preferable to treatment, we reviewed the literature aiming to find an answer for the question whether pHF may be recommended for feeding all infants if breast-feeding is not possible. PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2014. In addition, to search for data that remained undetected by the searches, we approached authors of relevant articles and major producers of pHFs asking for unpublished data. Because few data were found, nonrandomized, controlled trials and trials in preterm infants were included as well. Overall, only limited data could be found on the efficacy and safety of pHF in healthy term infants. Available data do not indicate that pHFs are potentially harmful for healthy, term infants. With respect to long-term outcomes, particularly referring to immune, metabolic and hormonal effects, data are, however, nonexistent. From a regulatory point of view, pHFs meet the nutrient requirements to be considered as standard formula for term healthy infants. Cost, which is different from country to country, should be considered in the decision-making process. Based on limited available data, the use of pHF in healthy infants is safe with regard to growth. The lack of data, in particular for metabolic consequences and long-term outcomes, is, however, the basis for our recommendation that health authorities should develop and support long-term follow-up studies. Efficacy and long-term safety data are required before a recommendation of this type of formula for all infants can be made.

Considerations in meeting protein needs of the human milk-fed preterm infant

Preterm infants provided with sufficient nutrition to achieve intrauterine growth rates have the greatest potential for optimal neurodevelopment. Although human milk is the preferred feeding for preterm infants, unfortified human milk provides insufficient nutrition for the very low-birth-weight infant. Even after fortification with human milk fortifier, human milk often fails to meet the high protein needs of the smallest preterm infants, and additional protein supplementation must be provided. Although substantial evidence exists to support quantitative protein goals for human milk-fed preterm infants, the optimal type of protein for use in human milk fortification remains uncertain. This question was addressed through a PubMed literature search of prospective clinical trials conducted since 1990 in preterm or low-birth-weight infant populations. The following 3 different aspects of protein quality were evaluated: whey-to-casein ratio, hydrolyzed versus intact protein, and bovine milk protein versus human milk protein. Because of a scarcity of current studies conducted with fortified human milk, studies examining protein quality using preterm infant formulas were included to address certain components of the clinical question. Twenty-six studies were included in the review study. No definite advantage was found for any specific whey-to-casein ratio. Protein hydrolyzate products with appropriate formulations can support adequate growth and biochemical indicators of nutrition status and may reduce gastrointestinal transit time, gastroesophageal reflux events, and later incidence of atopic dermatitis in some infants. Plasma amino acid levels similar to those of infants fed exclusive human milk-based diets can be achieved with products composed of a mixture of bovine proteins, peptides, and amino acids formulated to replicate the amino acid composition of human milk. Growth and biochemical indicators of nutrition status are similar for infants fed human milk fortified with human milk protein and bovine milk protein.

Amino acid-based formula as a rescue strategy in feeding very-low-birth-weight infants with intrauterine growth restriction

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) neonates may develop severe intolerance to standard preterm formula especially if they are associated with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). We tested the hypothesis that these infants may tolerate an elemental, amino acid-based formula as a rescue feeding strategy.

METHODS

In a prospective, case-control pilot study, we enrolled VLBW IUGR infants enterally fed with standard preterm formula (SPF) at daily increments of 16 mL/kg. If gastric residuals accounted for >70% of milk feed in the previous 24 hours, then feedings were temporarily withheld and then resumed with amino acid formula (AAF) increased at the same speed. Cases on AAF were compared to controls on SPF and with cases themselves while on SPF. Primary outcome was the time to reach full enteral feedings. Secondary outcomes were time on parenteral nutrition, time on central venous catheter, and formula tolerability based on the amount of gastric residual volume.

RESULTS

Sixty-four infants (22 cases) were enrolled. Although during the total duration of nutrition, cases had worse primary and secondary outcomes, when on AAF, cases were comparable to controls in time to full enteral feeding (14.4 vs 14 days), time on parenteral nutrition, and time on central venous catheter. Cases on AAF and controls had similar gastric residual volumes. At day 3 after AAF introduction, cases had a significantly reduced number (%) of gastric residual volume >5 mL/kg over total number of feedings (5.6 vs 1.5%; P < 0.05) and the mean gastric residual volume (2.7 vs 0.6 mL; P < 0.05) compared to themselves while on SPF. No difference was detected in weight at 21 and 28 days, in main serum parameters and outcome at discharge. Growth at 12 months of corrected age was also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In our population of VLBW IUGR newborns with severe feeding intolerance, a short course on AAF was a safe and effective means of nutritional rescue.