Effects of a Novel High-Quality Protein Infant Formula on Energetic Efficiency and Tolerance: A Randomized Trial

Gastrointestinal Tolerance of Formula-Fed Infants During the Immediate Postnatal Period in Saudi Arabia: An Observational Study

Objective. Feeding intolerance during the early postnatal period can be distressing for families. To assess this, infants (n = 150) of mothers who had previously decided to exclusively or partially formula feed were enrolled ≤24 hours after birth. Methods. Infants were fed with a single ready-to-feed, 100% partially hydrolyzed whey protein-based formula until discharge, in accordance with standard hospital practice. Parents recorded daily the presence/severity of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms/behaviors, rated from 0 (never) to 5 (always). A validated questionnaire was completed at discharge to evaluate symptoms of GI discomfort; scores can range from 0 to ~140 (lower scores indicate fewer symptoms). Results. Mean ± SD daily scores ranged from 0.12 ± 0.40 (fussiness/irritability) to 1.26 ± 0.90 (spitting up), indicating that GI symptoms/behaviors occurred, on average, "never" or "almost never." Mean GI discomfort scores were also very low (9.9 ± 7.4). Conclusion. These results indicate that the ready-to-feed formula was very well accepted and well tolerated during this period among healthy newborns in Saudi Arabia.

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).

Whey protein hydrolysates and infant formulas: Effects on physicochemical and biological properties

Whey protein hydrolysates are recognized for their substantial functional and biological properties. Their high digestibility and amino acid composition make them a valuable ingredient to hydrolyzed whey infant formulas, enhancing both product functionality and nutritional values for infant growth. It is important to understand the functional and biological properties of whey protein hydrolysates for their applications in infant formula systems. This review explored preparation methods of whey protein hydrolysates for infant formula-based applications. The effects of whey protein hydrolysate on the physicochemical and biological properties of hydrolyzed whey infant formulas were summarized. The influences of whey protein hydrolysates on the functional and nutritional properties of formulas from manufacturing to infant consumption were discussed. Whey protein hydrolysates are crucial components in the preparation of infant formula, tailored to meet the functional and nutritional demands of the product. The selection of enzyme types and hydrolysis parameters is decisive for obtaining "optimal" whey protein hydrolysates that match the intended characteristics. "Optimal" whey protein hydrolysates offer diverse functionalities, including solubility, emulsification and production stability to hydrolyzed whey infant formulas during manufacturing processes and formulations. They simultaneously promote protein digestibility, infant growth and other potential health benefits, including reduced allergenic potential, as supported by in vitro, in vivo and clinical trials. Overall, the precise selection of enzymes and hydrolysis parameters in the production of whey protein hydrolysates is crucial in achieving the desired characteristics and functional benefits for hydrolyzed whey infant formulas, making them critical in the development of infant nutrition products.

Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed term infants

BACKGROUND

Many infants are fed infant formulas to promote growth. Some formulas have a high protein content (≥ 2.5 g per 100 kcal) to accelerate weight gain during the first year of life. The risk-benefit balance of these formulas is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of higher protein intake versus lower protein intake in healthy, formula-fed term infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey, clinical trial registries, and conference proceedings in October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of healthy formula-fed infants (those fed only formula and those given formula as a complementary food). We included infants of any sex or ethnicity who were fed infant formula for at least three consecutive months at any time from birth. We excluded quasi-randomized trials, observational studies, and infants with congenital malformations or serious underlying diseases. We defined high protein content as 2.5 g or more per 100 kcal, and low protein content as less than 1.8 g per 100 kcal (for exclusive formula feeding) or less than 1.7 g per 100 kcal (for complementary formula feeding).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from trials, and a fifth review author resolved discrepancies. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, calculating risk ratios (RRs) or Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs (1185 infants) conducted in high-income countries. Seven trials (1629 infants) compared high-protein formula against standard-protein formula, and four trials (256 infants) compared standard-protein formula against low-protein formula. The longest follow-up was 11 years. High-protein formula versus standard-protein formula We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy term infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has little or no effect on underweight (MD in weight-for-age z-score 0.05 SDs, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.19; P = 0.51, I2 = 61%; 7 studies, 1629 participants), stunting (MD in height-for-age z-score 0.15 SDs, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.35; P = 0.14, I2 = 73%; 7 studies, 1629 participants), and wasting (MD in weight-for-height z-score -0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; P = 0.20, I2 = 94%; 7 studies, 1629 participants) in the first year of life. We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has little or no effect on the occurrence of overweight (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.51; P = 0.51; 1 study, 1090 participants) or obesity (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.59 to 6.48; P = 0.27; 1 study, 1090 participants) at five years of follow-up. No studies reported all-cause mortality. Feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse events such as diarrhea, vomiting, or milk hypersensitivity (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13; P = 0.44, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the first year of life. Standard-protein formula versus low-protein formula We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula has little or no effect on underweight (MD in weight-for-age z-score 0.0, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.43; P = 0.99, I2 = 81%; 4 studies, 256 participants), stunting (MD in height-for-age z-score -0.01, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.35; P = 0.96, I2 = 73%; 4 studies, 256 participants), and wasting (MD in weight-for-height z-score 0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.56; P = 0.54, I2 = 95%; 4 studies, 256 participants) in the first year of life. No studies reported overweight, obesity, or all-cause mortality. Feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse events such as diarrhea, vomiting, or milk hypersensitivity (Peto OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.40; P = 0.28, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the first four months of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are unsure if feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has an effect on undernutrition, overweight, or obesity. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between infants fed with high-protein formula versus those fed with standard-protein formula. We are unsure if feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula has any effect on undernutrition. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between infants fed with standard-protein formula versus those fed with low-protein formula. The findings of six ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification studies may change the conclusions of this review.

Dietary Prebiotic Oligosaccharides and Arachidonate Alter the Fecal Microbiota and Mucosal Lipid Composition of Suckling Pigs

BACKGROUND

Early intestinal development is important to infant vitality, and optimal formula composition can promote gut health.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the effects of arachidonate (ARA) and/or prebiotic oligosaccharide (PRE) supplementation in formula on the development of the microbial ecosystem and colonic health parameters.

METHODS

Newborn piglets were fed 4 formulas containing ARA [0.5 compared with 2.5% of dietary fatty acids (FAs)] and PRE (0 compared with 8 g/L, containing a 1:1 mixture of galactooligosaccharides and polydextrose) in a 2 x 2 factorial design for 22 d. Fecal samples were collected weekly and analyzed for relative microbial abundance. Intestinal samples were collected on day 22 and analyzed for mucosal FAs, pH, and short-chain FAs (SCFAs).

RESULTS

PRE supplementation significantly increased genera within Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, including Anaerostipes, Mitsuokella, Prevotella, Clostridium IV, and Bulleidia, and resulted in progressive separation from controls as determined by Principal Coordinates Analysis. Concentrations of SCFA increased from 70.98 to 87.37 mM, with an accompanying reduction in colonic pH. ARA supplementation increased the ARA content of the colonic mucosa from 2.35-5.34% of total FAs. PRE supplementation also altered mucosal FA composition, resulting in increased linoleic acid (11.52-16.33% of total FAs) and ARA (2.35-5.16% of total FAs).

CONCLUSIONS

Prebiotic supplementation during the first 22 d of life altered the gut microbiota of piglets and increased the abundance of specific bacterial genera. These changes correlated with increased SCFA, which may benefit intestinal development. Although dietary ARA did not alter the microbiota, it increased the ARA content of the colonic mucosa, which may support intestinal development and epithelial repair. Prebiotic supplementation also increased unsaturation of FAs in the colonic mucosa. Although the mechanism requires further investigation, it may be related to altered microbial ecology or biohydrogenation of FA.

Infant Feeding Choices during the First Post-Natal Months and Anthropometry at Age Seven Years: Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial

The Belgrade–Munich Infant Milk Trial (BeMIM) randomized healthy term infants into either a protein-reduced intervention infant formula (IF) group, with an α-lactalbumin-enriched whey and long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, or a control infant formula (CF) group. A non-randomized breastfed group (BF) was studied for reference. We assessed the long-term effects of these infant feeding choices on growth measures until the age of seven years. Weight, standing height, head circumference, and percent body fat (using skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance) were determined with standardized methods. A total of 161 children out of the 256 completers of the initial study (63%) participated in the seven-year follow-up. Children in the three study groups did not differ in their anthropometric measures, including body mass index (IF 16.1 ± 2.6, CF: 15.6 ± 1.7, BF: 15.6 ± 2.5 kg/m², mean ± SD). IGF-1 serum concentrations determined at the age of 4 months contributed to explaining the variances in weight (p = 0.001), height (p = 0.001) and BMI (p = 0.035) z-scores at the age of seven years, whereas insulin levels at four months did not. Different feeding choices during the first four months of life leading to higher energy efficiency and increased growth with IF did not affect later growth outcomes at an early school age. Diet-induced modulation of IGF-1 in the first months of life may have lasting programming effects on later growth.