Higher urinary excretion of essential amino acids in preterm infants fed protein hydrolysates

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.

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.

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.

Digestive Responses to Fortified Cow or Goat Dairy Drinks: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Fortified milk drinks are predominantly manufactured from bovine (cow) sources. Alternative formulations include those prepared with hydrolysed bovine milk proteins or from alternate bovidae species, such as caprine (goat) milk. Currently, there is little data on protein digestive and metabolic responses following ingestion of fortified milk drinks. To examine the digestive and metabolic responses to commercially-available fortified milks, young adults (n = 15 males: 15 females), in a randomised sequence, ingested isonitrogenous quantities of whole cow-protein (WC), whole goat-protein (WG), or partially-hydrolysed whey cow-protein (HC), commercial fortified milks. Plasma amino acid (AA) and hormonal responses were measured at baseline and again at 5 h after ingestion. Paracetamol recovery, breath hydrogen, and subjective digestive responses were also measured. Postprandial plasma AA was similar between WC and WG, while AA appearance was suppressed with HC. Following HC, there was a negative incremental AUC in plasma branched-chain AAs. Further, HC had delayed gastric emptying, increased transit time, and led to exaggerated insulin and GLP-1 responses, in comparison to whole protein formulas. Overall, WC and WG had similar protein and digestive responses with no differences in digestive comfort. Contrastingly, HC led to delayed gastric emptying, attenuated AA appearance, and a heightened circulating insulin response.

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.

Use of extensively hydrolysed formula for refeeding neonates postnecrotising enterocolitis: a nationwide survey-based, cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of and reasons for using extensively hydrolysed formulas (EHFs) of cow's milk proteins in the French neonatal units as well as the modality of their prescription for refeeding infants recovering from necrotising enterocolitis (NEC).

METHODS

A multicentre nationwide cross-sectional study using a questionnaire to address the prevalence of use and the reasons for prescribing EHF in hospitalised neonates and to examine the protocols and the actual reasons for their use for refeeding infants in recovery from NEC. The questionnaire was sent to only 1 senior neonatologist in each neonatal unit included in the study.

RESULTS

More than half of the French neonatal units participated in the survey. 91% of the surveyed units used EHF. Of 1969 infants hospitalised on the day the survey was run, 12% were fed on an EHF. 11% of the EHF prescriptions were due to previous NEC. The main reasons for using an EHF to feed infants post-NEC were the absence of human milk (75%) and surgical management of NEC (17%). When given, EHF was mainly prescribed for a period varying between 15 days and 3 months. None of the involved units continued using the EHF after 6 months of age. More than half of the surveyed units acknowledged hospitalising infants for the initiation of weaning EHF but only 21% of them tested these infants for cow's milk allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of EHF use in the French neonatal units is high. Refeeding infants post-NEC is one of the main reasons for such a high prevalence. The main incentive for using an EHF is the absence of human breast milk, either maternal or donor.

Application effect of extensively hydrolyzed milk protein formula and follow-up in preterm children with a gestational age of less than 34 weeks: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The average incidence of preterm birth in the world is up to 11.1 %, and deaths of preterm children account for more than 50 % of neonatal deaths. Gastrointestinal function of preterm children with a gestational age less than 34 weeks is immaturely developed. For preterm children who can only be fed with formula due to their mothers’ sickness, choosing a suitable formula can not only meet the high nutritional needs of preterm children, but also solve their low gastrointestinal tolerability, and is thus very important.

Methods/Design

The study is a prospective, randomized, single-blind and controlled clinical trial. Preterm children with a gestational age less than 34 weeks meeting the inclusion criteria who cannot be breastfed will be included. To demonstrate the application effect of extensively hydrolyzed milk protein formula on the target population, preterm children will be randomized into two groups, 185 subjects in each group. The observation group will be fed with extensively hydrolyzed milk protein (100 % whey protein) formula, while the control group will be fed with preterm children’s formula until the children are discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). All the formula involved in this study will be from Dumex. After discharge, both groups will be uniformly fed with formula for 0 to 6-month-old infants. For statistical analysis, a chi-square test and Student’s t test will be applied using SAS 9.4.

Discussion

This will be the first randomized controlled clinical study with long-term observation of the growth and development of preterm children during the NICU stay and at 3-month follow-up after discharge from the NICU. Results from this study will be used to determine whether the extensively hydrolyzed formula is more suitable for the low gastrointestinal tolerability of preterm children, and also whether feeding preterm children who are fed with such formula during the NICU stay with ordinary infant formula after discharge from the NICU would affect the normal growth and development of preterm children in the early stage of their lives.

Trial registration

This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/) with number ChiCTR-IOR-14005696, on December 22, 2014.

The effect of enteral and parenteral feeding on secretion of orexigenic peptides in infants

Background

The feeding in the first months of the life seems to influence the risks of obesity and affinity to some diseases including atherosclerosis. The mechanisms of these relations are unknown, however, the modification of hormonal action can likely be taken into account. Therefore, in this study the levels of ghrelin and orexin A - peripheral and central peptide from the orexigenic gut-brain axis were determined.

Methods

Fasting and one hour after the meal plasma concentrations of ghrelin and orexin were measured in breast-fed (group I; n = 17), milk formula-fed (group II; n = 16) and highly hydrolyzed, hypoallergic formula-fed (group III; n = 14) groups, age matched infants (mean 4 months) as well as in children with iv provision of nutrients (glucose - group IV; n = 15; total parenteral nutrition - group V; n = 14). Peptides were determined using EIA commercial kits.

Results

Despite the similar caloric intake in orally fed children the fasting ghrelin and orexin levels were significantly lower in the breast-fed children (0.37 ± 0.17 and 1.24 ± 0.29 ng/ml, respectively) than in the remaining groups (0.5 ± 0.27 and 1.64 ± 0.52 ng/ml, respectively in group II and 0.77 ± 0.27 and 2.04 ± 1.1 ng/ml, respectively, in group III). The postprandial concentrations of ghrelin increased to 0.87 ± 0.29 ng/ml, p < 0.002 and 0.76 ± 0.26 ng/ml, p < 0.01 in groups I and II, respectively as compared to fasting values. The decrease in concentration of ghrelin after the meal was observed only in group III (0.47 ± 0.24 ng/ml). The feeding did not influence the orexin concentration. In groups IV and V the ghrelin and orexin levels resembled those in milk formula-fed children.

Conclusion

The highly hydrolyzed diet strongly affects fasting and postprandial ghrelin and orexin plasma concentrations with possible negative effect on short- and long-time effects on development. Also total parenteral nutrition with the continuous stimulation and lack of fasting/postprandial modulation might be responsible for disturbed development in children fed this way.