Growth and tolerance of healthy term infants receiving hydrolyzed infant formulas supplemented with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG: randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

New Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus strains: well tolerated and improve infant microbiota

BACKGROUND

Different microorganisms from the environment will begin to colonise the infant during and immediately after the delivery. It could be advantageous to influence the microbiome early on by giving infants probiotic bacteria. The aim of the study was to investigate the tolerance of two probiotic lactobacilli in infants. The effect on the microbiota was also followed.

METHODS

Thirty-six healthy infants, aged 4-83 days at the start of the study, were given a daily supplementation of probiotics (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HEAL9 and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus 271, 10⁹ CFU (colony-forming units)) or placebo for 8 weeks. Adverse events, growth parameters, the faecal microbiome and intestinal performance were followed.

RESULTS

No differences between the groups in growth parameters, adverse events and intestinal performance were observed. The faecal levels of L. plantarum, L. rhamnosus and lactobacilli increased after the intake of probiotics and were significantly higher compared with the placebo group after 4 and 8 weeks of intake. The faecal microbial diversity was similar in the two groups at the end of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention with the probiotic formulation was well tolerated and increased the level of lactobacilli in the intestine. The developed probiotic formulation will be further evaluated for clinical efficacy in infants.

IMPACT

New data for the development of the gut function and the microbiome in breastfed and/or formula-fed young infants over time and the effect of adding two probiotic strains are presented. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum is a species that seldom has been analysed in infants, but it could be detected in 25% of the subjects before administration (mean age 41 days). Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and L. rhamnosus establish well in the intestine of infants and are well tolerated. The microbiota was positively affected by the intake of probiotics.

Probiotic Supplementation for Promotion of Growth in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Probiotics are commonly prescribed to promote a healthy gut microbiome in children. Our objective was to investigate the effects of probiotic supplementation on growth outcomes in children 0-59 months of age. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that administered probiotics to children aged 0-59 months, with growth outcomes as a result. We completed a random-effects meta-analysis and calculated a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk (RR) and reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We included 79 RCTs, 54 from high-income countries (HIC), and 25 from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). LMIC data showed that probiotics may have a small effect on weight (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11-0.42, grade-certainty = low) and height (SMD 0.16, 95% CI: 0.06-0.25, grade-certainty = moderate). HIC data did not show any clinically meaningful effect on weight (SMD: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.04-0.05, grade-certainty = moderate), or height (SMD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.06-0.04, grade-certainty = moderate). There was no evidence that probiotics affected the risk of adverse events. We conclude that in otherwise healthy children aged 0-59 months, probiotics may have a small but heterogenous effect on weight and height in LMIC but not in children from HIC.

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG Colonization in Early Life Ameliorates Inflammaging of Offspring by Activating SIRT1/AMPK/PGC-1α Pathway

Inflammaging refers to chronic, low-grade inflammation during aging, which contributes to the pathogenesis of age-related diseases. Studies have shown that probiotic intervention in the aging stage could delay aging-related disorders. However, whether the application of probiotics in early life could have antiaging effects on offspring was unknown. Here, we investigated the effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) colonization in early life on inflammaging of offspring. Pregnant mice with the same conception time were given LGG live bacteria (LC group) or LGG fixed bacteria (NC group) from the 18th day after pregnancy until natural birth. The progeny mice were treated with 10⁷ cfu of live or fixed LGG for 0-5 days after birth, respectively. LGG colonization could be detected in the feces of 3-week offspring. The 16S rRNA sequencing analysis of 3-week-old offspring showed that colonization of LGG in early life could alter the composition and diversity of gut microbiota. Interestingly, the beneficial effects of LGG colonization in early life on the microbiota lasted to 8 months old. The abundance of longevity-related bacteria (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Akkermansia muciniphila) increased significantly in the LGG colonization group. In addition, LGG colonization increased the abundance of short-chain fatty acid- (SCFA-) producing bacteria and the production of cecal SCFAs. LGG colonization in early life protected the intestinal barrier, enhanced antioxidant defense, attenuated epithelial cell DNA damage, and inhibited intestinal low-grade inflammation in 8-month-old progeny mice. Mechanically, LGG could upregulate Sirtuin1 (SIRT1)/Adenosine 5'-monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK)/Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ coactivator 1-α (PGC-1α) pathway and repress activation of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), while the protective effect of LGG was blunted after SIRT1 gene silencing. Together, LGG colonization in early life could ameliorate inflammaging of offspring, which would provide a new strategy for the prevention of age-related diseases.

Growth and tolerance of healthy, term infants fed lower protein extensively hydrolyzed or amino acid-based formula: double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

Background

Optimal protein level in hypoallergenic infant formulas is an area of ongoing investigation. The aim was to evaluate growth of healthy term infants who received extensively hydrolyzed (EH) or amino acid (AA)-based formulas with reduced protein.

Methods

In this prospective, multi-center, double-blind, controlled, parallel group study, infants were randomized to receive a marketed EH casein infant formula at 2.8 g protein/100 kcal (Control) or one of two investigational formulas: EH casein formula at 2.4 g protein/100 kcal (EHF) or AA-based formula at 2.4 g total protein equivalents/100 kcal (AAF). Control and EHF each had 2 × 10⁷ CFU Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/100 kcal. Anthropometrics were measured and recall of formula intake, tolerance, and stool characteristics was collected at 14, 30, 60, 90, 120 days of age. Primary outcome was weight growth rate (g/day) between 14 and 120 days of age (analyzed by ANOVA). Medically confirmed adverse events were recorded throughout the study.

Results

No group differences in weight or length growth rate from 14 to 120 days were detected. With the exception of significant differences at several study time points for males, no group differences were detected in mean head circumference growth rates. However, mean achieved weight, length, and head circumference demonstrated normal growth throughout the study period. No group differences in achieved weight or length (males and females) and head circumference (females) were detected and means were within the WHO growth 25th and 75th percentiles from 14 to 120 days of age. With the exception of Day 90, there were no statistically significant group differences in achieved head circumference for males; means remained between the WHO 50th and 75th percentiles for growth at Days 14, 30, and 60 and continued along the 75th percentile through Day 120. No differences in study discontinuation due to formula were detected. The number of participants for whom at least one adverse event was reported was similar among groups.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated hypoallergenic infant formulas at 2.4 g protein/100 kcal were safe, well-tolerated, and associated with appropriate growth in healthy term infants from 14 to 120 days of age.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01354366. Registered 13 May 2011.

Tenth year reenrollment randomized trial investigating the effects of childhood probiotics and calcium supplementation on height and weight at adolescence

Microbiota and its modification with specific probiotics in early life could provide long term health benefits. Probiotics and calcium strengthen intestinal integrity and may support linear growth. This study investigated the long-term effects of childhood probiotics and calcium supplementation on growth in adolescence. We re-enrolled 238 adolescents aged 11-18 years from 494 children 10-years after 6-months of supplementation with either low-lactose milk fortified with low levels of calcium (LC, ∼50 mg/day, n = 53/124), with regular levels of calcium (RC, ∼440 mg/day, n = 70/126), or with regular calcium + 5 x 108 CFU/day Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 (Reuteri, n = 55/124), or regular calcium + 5 x 108 CFU/day L. casei CRL 431 (Casei, n = 60/120). Changes in height-for-age z-score (HAZ) and body mass index-for-age z-score (BMIZ) were determined from the end of intervention to re-enrollment. General linear models were used to assess the effects on HAZ and BMIZ of group, gender, living area, maternal education, family income, physical activity, diet quality, nutritional status, and gut integrity as determined by urinary lactulose/mannitol ratio (L:M). Adolescent mean age was 15.3 years, mean HAZ was - 1.11, mean BMIZ was - 0.2 and median L:M (n = 155) was 0.23. Changes in HAZ and BMIZ were not significantly different between Casei, Reuteri, LC compared to RC. However, a significant decrease in BMIZ was observed among female adolescents in the Casei compared to RC group (- 0.5 SD, 95% CI - 0.8 to - 0.003, p = 0.048). Childhood probiotic and calcium supplementation may therefore selectively affect female adolescents.Clinical trial registration: This follow-up study has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov , Registry name: Rina Agustina, Registration number: NCT04046289, First Registration Date 06/08/19. web link: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04046289 .

Opinion on the re-evaluation of starch sodium octenyl succinate (E 1450) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and the follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

As a follow-up to the re-evaluation of starch sodium octenyl succinate (SSOS; E 1450), the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of SSOS (E 1450) when used in food for infants below 16 weeks of age for food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.1 and to address the data gaps identified during the re-evaluation of the SSOS (E 1450). The process involved the publication of a call for data. The Panel considered it feasible to amend the specifications based on the analytical evidence submitted. In the call for data, clinical trials were submitted to support the safe use in this age group. In addition, the report of a postnatal piglet study was provided. Due to the low internal validity of the clinical studies, the Panel concluded that a reference point could not be derived from them. The Panel noted that the uncertainty surrounding the results of the piglet study precludes deriving a reference point from this study. On the other hand, both data sources did not clearly indicate an adverse effect due to SSOS (E 1450). Given the available data, the Panel concluded that at use levels of SSOS in food for infants below 16 weeks within the range reported in the clinical studies (up to 2,725 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day), there is no indication for safety concern and reiterated the conclusion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI). When extrapolating this conclusion to the safety assessment of the food additive when used in food categories (FCs) 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 in food for infants above 16 weeks of age and young children, the Panel considered that there is no indication for safety concern also for these uses within the range reported in the clinical studies.

Establishment of an ideal gut microbiota to boost healthy growth of neonates

For decades, supporting the optimal growth of low birth weight (LBW) infants has been considered one of the most important paediatric challenges, despite advances in neonatal intensive care technology and nutrition interventions. Since gut microbiota affects such diverse phenotypes in adults, the difference in gut microbiota composition between normal infants and LBW infants raises the possibility of gut microbiota playing an important role in different growth rates of neonates. Based on the concept that probiotics are generally beneficial to the health, numerous studies have been made on probiotics as a supplement to the diet of the LBW infants. However, clinical results on the effects of probiotics on LBW infant growth are either inconsistent or contradictory with each other, and thus the contribution of gut microbiota in neonatal growth has remained inconclusive. In this review, recent researches on neonatal gut microbiota are discussed to develop a new strategy for targeting gut microbiota as a solution to growth retardation in LBW infants. We also discuss how to establish the ideal gut microbiota to support optimal growth of LBW infants.

Standard and Specialized Infant Formulas in Europe: Making, Marketing, and Health Outcomes

Infant formulas are the only suitable substitute for human milk. The most common infant formulas are standard formulas based on cow's milk. In addition, there are formulas for infants showing signs and symptoms of intolerance and for clinical conditions such as allergy, prematurity, and gastrointestinal diseases. A comprehensive review of the literature was made to review the composition of standard and specialized infant formulas and analyze indications for use, real or presumed nutrition differences and properties, and impact on infant growth. A brief consideration on costs is outlined for each formula. Over the past few years, industrial production and advertising of infant formulas have increased. Human milk still remains the most complete source of nutrition for infants and should be continued according to the current recommendations. Few differences exist between infant formulas, both for the nutrition action and the macronutrient/micronutrient composition. Specialized infant formulas have limited indications for use and high costs. The role of the pediatrician is crucial in the management of infant nutrition, promotion of breastfeeding, and prescribing of specialized formulas only in specific clinical conditions.

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.

Comparison of Growth of Healthy Term Infants Fed Extensively Hydrolyzed Protein- and Amino Acid-Based Infant Formulas

The aim of this narrative review was to assess published growth data for healthy, term, infants consuming extensively hydrolyzed protein-based (EHF), or amino acid-based formulas (AAF). These data may be of use to clinicians managing infants with medical conditions consuming these products. A search was conducted using key terms: amino acid-based, hydrolysate, hydrolyzed, hydrolysed, infant formula, infant formulae or formulas, baby formula, or formulae or formulas, infant, infants, infantile, and growth. Seven controlled, randomized, prospective growth trials of healthy term infants fed EHFs or AAFs at similar time points during the first four months of age met these and other criteria, including that the trial was published in a peer-reviewed journal, subjects were enrolled by ≤14 days of age and were exclusively formula-fed at entry and throughout the duration of the trial, and infants were assessed at regular intervals with weight measures available ideally at 14 days, one, two, three, and four months of age. Results suggested that healthy infants receiving commonly available EHFs and AAFs do not appear to experience accelerated growth as reported for infants fed many standard formulas. Differences in growth patterns were observed with some formulas supporting normative growth patterns during the first four months but others appearing to support markedly lower growth patterns. These observations should be confirmed in well-designed prospective randomized trials. Until that time, it is recommended that EHFs and AAFs be chosen carefully with individual patient needs considered.

Re-evaluation of oxidised starch (E 1404), monostarch phosphate (E 1410), distarch phosphate (E 1412), phosphated distarch phosphate (E 1413), acetylated distarch phosphate (E 1414), acetylated starch (E 1420), acetylated distarch adipate (E 1422), hydroxypropyl starch (E 1440), hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate (E 1442), starch sodium octenyl succinate (E 1450), acetylated oxidised starch (E 1451) and starch aluminium octenyl succinate (E 1452) as food additives

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of 12 modified starches (E 1404, E 1410, E 1412, E 1413, E 1414, E 1420, E 1422, E 1440, E 1442, E 1450, E 1451 and E 1452) authorised as food additives in the EU in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and previously evaluated by JECFA and the SCF. Both committees allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified'. In humans, modified starches are not absorbed intact but significantly hydrolysed by intestinal enzymes and then fermented by the intestinal microbiota. Using the read-across approach, the Panel considered that adequate data on short- and long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity are available. Based on in silico analyses, modified starches are considered not to be of genotoxic concern. No treatment-related effects relevant for human risk assessment were observed in rats fed very high levels of modified starches (up to 31,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day). Modified starches (e.g. E 1450) were well tolerated in humans up to a single dose of 25,000 mg/person. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of modified starches as food additives at the reported uses and use levels for the general population and that there is no need for a numerical ADI. The combined exposure to E 1404-E 1451 at the 95th percentile of the refined (brand-loyal) exposure assessment scenario for the general population was up to 3,053 mg/kg bw per day. Exposure to E 1452 for food supplement consumers only at the 95th percentile was up to 22.1 mg/kg bw per day.

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG: An Overview to Explore the Rationale of Its Use in Cancer

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the western world. In the era of precision medicine, a significant number of cancer patients can be cured with several anti-cancer therapeutic regimens. However, therapy failure may be caused by treatment side effects, such as diarrhea, especially occurring in patients with gastrointestinal or pelvic malignancies. In particular, diarrhea is one of the most frequent gastrointestinal toxicity during cancer treatment and it can result from nearly bot chemo- and radio-therapeutic strategies currently used. Diarrhea has a serious impact on patients’ quality of life and treatment dosing and schedule modification due to its severity can negatively influence treatment outcomes. In this context, probiotics may play an interesting role in several human diseases with an inflammatory bowel involvement and, among these, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) is one of the most characterized and utilized. In particular, LGG is able to reverse intestinal dysbiosis and moderate diarrhea. Moreover, preclinical studies have documented its effects in reducing chronic inflammation associated with cancer development. This review summarizes the preclinical results of LGG on cancer cells proliferation and tumor invasion as well as the potential role of LGG use in cancer patients for the prevention and management of diarrhea associated with cancer treatment. Overall, these encouraging data support further investigation on the use of LGG in stratified patients undergoing specific therapeutic protocols, including chemotherapy and pelvic radiotherapy, in order to reduce the development of severe diarrhea and thus improve the adherence to the therapy and patients’ quality of life.

An integrated approach to the safety assessment of food additives in early life

During the development of international standards by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, infant foods and their constituent ingredients are subject to rigorous risk analysis and are strictly regulated by many authorities. Various jurisdictions have approved only a limited number of additives specifically with regard to infant foods to fulfill specific technical requirements of quality. As part of the approval process, a rigorous safety assessment is essential to confirm that the use of additives does not pose any health risk for the consumer. An acceptable daily intake (ADI) may be derived from the toxicological databases. However, the ADI may not be applicable to infants because of the possible developmental sensitivities and potentially high exposure scenarios, leading to possible lower margins of safety than would often be determined for adult populations. There is interest in defining better food safety assessment approaches for pre-weaned infants aged less than 12–16 weeks. To confirm safe use in infants, we reviewed the suitability of the existing safety databases of six additives with historical uses in infant nutrition products. To determine further toxicity testing strategies, it is necessary to understand whether the chemical used in the additives is identical to endogenous physiological metabolites and/or whether immature organs of infants are targets of toxicity. Combined with an in-depth review of the existing relevant toxicological and nutritional studies, this integrated approach will facilitate decision-making. We propose a decision tree as a tool within this approach to help guide appropriate data requirements and identify data gaps. In cases of reasonable uncertainty, studies of targeted juvenile should be considered to investigate the safe use levels in food products.

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.

Neonatal colonization of mice with LGG promotes intestinal development and decreases susceptibility to colitis in adulthood

Development of the intestinal microbiota during early life serves as a key regulatory stage in establishing the host-microbial relationship. This symbiotic relationship contributes to developing host immunity and maintaining health throughout the life span. This study was to develop an approach to colonize conventionally raised mice with a model probiotic bacterium, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), and to determine the effects of LGG colonization on intestinal development and prevention of colitis in adulthood. LGG colonization in conventionally raised was established by administering LGG to pregnant mice starting at gestational day 18 and pups at postnatal days 1- 5. LGG colonization promoted bodyweight gain and increased diversity and richness of the colonic mucosa-associated microbiota before weaning. Intestinal epithelial cell proliferation, differentiation, tight junction formation, and mucosal IgA production were all significantly enhanced in LGG-colonized mice. Adult mice colonized with LGG showed increased IgA production and decreased susceptibility to intestinal injury and inflammation induced in the dextran sodium sulfate model of colitis. Thus, neonatal colonization of mice with LGG enhances intestinal functional maturation and IgA production and confers lifelong health consequences on protection from intestinal injury and inflammation. This strategy might be applied for benefiting health in the host.

Long-term safety assessment in children who received hydrolyzed protein formulas with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG: a 5-year follow-up

Extensively hydrolyzed (EH) formula with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) was demonstrated to alleviate cow's milk allergy (CMA) symptoms and promote faster acquisition of tolerance to cow's milk protein. We previously demonstrated that partially hydrolyzed (PH) and EH formulas with LGG supported normal growth in healthy-term infants through 120 days of age. The objective of the current study was to evaluate growth, development, and specific adverse events through 5 years of age in participants from that cohort who continued receiving study formula. Infants who completed a double-blind, randomized growth and tolerance study were eligible to continue receiving the assigned study formula through 1 year of age (control: EH casein formula, EHF, or one of two investigational formulas: EH casein formula with LGG (EHF-LGG) or a PH formula with LGG (PHF-LGG)) and participate in follow-up through 5 years of age. Anthropometric measures, behavior development, and specific adverse events were recorded. No significant differences in achieved weight and height or behavioral development outcomes at 3 or 5 years of age were observed among study groups. Few statistically significant differences in the incidence of specific infection-related events through years 3 or 5 were observed among study groups, none of which were considered clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

Extensively and partially hydrolyzed formulas with LGG were associated with normal growth and development and long-term safety through 5 years of age. What is Known: • Infants with cow's milk allergy often experience allergic manifestations that can lead to poor nutrition status and poor growth. • Providing partially hydrolyzed (PH) and EH formulas with or without LGG in infants can support normal growth in healthy-term infants. What is New: • This study provides long-term safety data for the first 5 years of life on the use of extensively and partially hydrolyzed formulas with LGG when fed through 1 year of age. • Extensively and partially hydrolyzed formulas with LGG are associated with normal growth, development, and long-term safety through 5 years of age.

Growth and tolerance of infants fed formula with a new algal source of docosahexaenoic acid: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in infant formula at concentrations based on worldwide human milk has resulted in circulating red blood cell (RBC) lipids related to visual and cognitive development. In this study, infants received study formula (17mg DHA/100kcal) with a commercially-available (Control: n=140; DHASCO®) or alternative (DHASCO®-B: n=127) DHA single cell oil from 14 to 120 days of age. No significant group differences were detected for growth rates by gender through 120 days of age. Blood fatty acids at 120 days of age were assessed by capillary column gas chromatography in a participant subset (Control: n=34; DHASCO-B: n=27). The 90% confidence interval (91-104%) for the group mean (geometric) total RBC DHA (µg/mL) ratio fell within the pre-specified equivalence limit (80-125%), establishing study formula equivalence with respect to DHA. This study demonstrated infant formula with DHASCO-B was safe, well-tolerated, and associated with normal growth. Furthermore, DHASCO and DHASCO-B represented equivalent sources of DHA as measured by circulating RBC DHA.

Hydrolysed formula and risk of allergic or autoimmune disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether feeding infants with hydrolysed formula reduces their risk of allergic or autoimmune disease.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis, as part of a series of systematic reviews commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency to inform guidelines on infant feeding. Two authors selected studies by consensus, independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and LILACS searched between January 1946 and April 2015.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Prospective intervention trials of hydrolysed cows' milk formula compared with another hydrolysed formula, human breast milk, or a standard cows' milk formula, which reported on allergic or autoimmune disease or allergic sensitisation.

RESULTS

37 eligible intervention trials of hydrolysed formula were identified, including over 19,000 participants. There was evidence of conflict of interest and high or unclear risk of bias in most studies of allergic outcomes and evidence of publication bias for studies of eczema and wheeze. Overall there was no consistent evidence that partially or extensively hydrolysed formulas reduce risk of allergic or autoimmune outcomes in infants at high pre-existing risk of these outcomes. Odds ratios for eczema at age 0-4, compared with standard cows' milk formula, were 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.07; I(2)=30%) for partially hydrolysed formula; 0.55 (0.28 to 1.09; I(2)=74%) for extensively hydrolysed casein based formula; and 1.12 (0.88 to 1.42; I(2)=0%) for extensively hydrolysed whey based formula. There was no evidence to support the health claim approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that a partially hydrolysed formula could reduce the risk of eczema nor the conclusion of the Cochrane review that hydrolysed formula could allergy to cows' milk.

CONCLUSION

These findings do not support current guidelines that recommend the use of hydrolysed formula to prevent allergic disease in high risk infants.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013004252.

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.

Safety of a thickened extensive casein hydrolysate formula

OBJECTIVES

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is treated in formula-fed infants with an extensive protein hydrolysate. This study aimed to evaluate the nutritional safety of a non-thickened and thickened extensively casein hydrolyzed protein formula (NT- and T-eCHF) in infants with CMA.

METHODS

Infants younger than 6 mo old with a positive cow milk challenge test, positive IgE, or skin prick test for cow milk were selected. Weight and length were followed during the 6 mo intervention with the NT-eCHF and T-eCHF.

RESULTS

A challenge was performed in 50/71 infants with suspected CMA and was positive in 34/50. All children with confirmed CMA tolerated the eCHF. The T-eCHF leads to a significant improvement of the stool consistency in the whole population and in the subpopulation of infants with proven CMA. Height and weight evolution was satisfactory throughout the 6 mo study.

CONCLUSIONS

The eCHF fulfills the criteria of a hypoallergenic formula and the NT- and T-eCHF reduced CMA symptoms. Growth was within normal range.

Effects of probiotics on child growth: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Child undernutrition has short and long term consequence for both individuals and society. Previous studies show probiotics may promote child growth and have an impact on under-nutrition.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out on three electronic databases to assess evidence. The outcome measured was change in weight or height. A narrative analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity of included studies.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the review of which ten were randomised controlled trials. A total of 2757 children were included, with 1598 from developing countries. The studies varied in type and quantity of probiotics given, duration of interventions, characteristics of participants, setting and units of outcome measures. Overall, five studies found a positive effect of probiotics on child growth. All five were conducted in developing countries with four studies conducted in mostly under-nourished children and one in well-nourished children. No significant effect on growth was found in the seven studies that were conducted in developed countries.

CONCLUSION

The limited evidence suggests that probiotics have the potential to improve child growth in developing countries and in under-nourished children. More research is needed to explore this further.

Growth of healthy term infants fed partially hydrolyzed whey-based infant formula: a randomized, blinded, controlled trial

Partially hydrolyzed formulas (pHF) represent a significant percentage of the infant formula market. A new whey-based, palm olein oil (PO)-free pHF was developed and a masked, randomized, parallel growth study was conducted in infants fed this formula or a commercially available whey-based pHF with PO. Infants between 0 and 8 days were to be enrolled and studied to 119 days of age. Growth and tolerance of infants were evaluated. Mean weight gain from 14 to 119 days of age was similar between groups. There were no significant differences between groups in weight, length, head circumference (HC), or length or HC gains. Infants fed the new PO-free pHF had significantly softer stools than those fed the PO-containing formula except at 119 days of age. This study demonstrates that whereas growth of infants fed different formulas during the first 4 months of life may be similar, infants may tolerate individual formulas differently.

A 3-week dietary safety study of octenyl succinic anhydride (OSA)-modified starch in neonatal farm piglets

Octenyl succinic anhydride (OSA)-modified starch functions as both an emulsifier and emulsion stabilizer in foods, and is intended for use in infant formula, follow-on formula, and formulae for special medical purposes. These formulae predominantly include extensively hydrolyzed protein or free amino acids, rather than intact protein, which otherwise would provide emulsifying functionality. The study objectives were to evaluate (1) the safety of OSA-modified starch after three weeks of administration to neonatal farm piglets, beginning 2 days after birth and (2) the impact of OSA-modified starch on piglet growth. OSA-modified starch was added to formula at concentrations of 2, 4, and 20 g/L. The vehicle control, low-dose, and mid-dose diets were supplemented with Amioca™ Powder to balance the nutritional profiles of all formulations. There were no test article-related effects of any diet containing OSA-modified starch on piglet growth and development (clinical observations, body weight, feed consumption), or clinical pathology parameters (hematology, clinical chemistry, coagulation, urinalysis). In addition, there were no adverse effects at terminal necropsy (macro- and microscopic pathology evaluations). Therefore, dietary exposure to OSA-modified starch at concentrations up to 20 g/L was well tolerated by neonatal farm piglets and did not result in adverse health effects or impact piglet growth.

Extensive protein hydrolysate formula effectively reduces regurgitation in infants with positive and negative challenge tests for cow's milk allergy

Aim

Cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA) is treated using an elimination diet with an extensive protein hydrolysate. We explored whether a thickened or nonthickened version was best for infants with suspected CMPA, which commonly causes regurgitation/vomiting.

Methods

Diagnosis of CMPA was based on a positive challenge test. We compared the efficacy of two casein extensive hydrolysates (eCH), a nonthickened version (NT-eCH) and a thickened version (T-eCH), using a symptom-based score covering regurgitation, crying, stool consistency, eczema, urticarial and respiratory symptoms.

Results

A challenge was performed in 52/72 infants with suspected CMPA and was positive in 65.4%. All confirmed CMPA cases tolerated eCH. The symptom-based score decreased significantly in all infants within a month, and the highest reduction was in those with confirmed CMPA. Regurgitation was reduced in all infants (6.4 ± 3.2–2.8 ± 2.9, p < 0.001), but fell more with the T-eCH (−4.2 ± 3.2 regurgitations/day vs. −3.0 ± 4.5, ns), especially in infants with a negative challenge (−3.9 ± 4.0 vs. −1.9 ± 3.4, ns).

Conclusion

eCH fulfilled the criteria for a hypoallergenic formula, and the NT-eCH and T-eCH formulas both reduced CMPA symptoms. The symptom-based score is useful for evaluating how effective dietary treatments are for CMPA.

Growth of healthy term infants fed ready-to-feed and powdered forms of an extensively hydrolyzed casein-based infant formula: a randomized, blinded, controlled trial

Extensively hydrolyzed formulas present a complex matrix subject to adverse conditions during manufacture that could influence growth and tolerance of infants fed these formulas. A masked, randomized, parallel growth study was conducted in infants fed a ready-to-feed (RTF) or powdered (PWD) form of an extensively hydrolyzed casein-based formula. Infants were enrolled between 0 and 9 days and studied to 112 days of age. Growth, formula intake, and stool patterns were assessed. There were no significant differences between groups in weight, length, head circumference, or their respective gains. Tolerance was similar between groups except that the RTF group had greater formula intakes and passed more stools/day compared to the PWD group. This study demonstrates that the PWD formulation of this RTF formula supports similar growth and tolerance in infants during the first 4 months of life.

Probiotic and synbiotic safety in infants under two years of age

In this study, we systematically evaluated safety aspects in clinical trials with probiotics and synbiotics in young infants (0-2 years of age). This study is an update of earlier reports and covers the recent literature from 2008-2013. The safety evaluation is performed along the Common Terminology Clinical Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 scale, hereby also providing guidance for future studies. Safety aspects are represented and related to number of participants per probiotic strain/culture, study duration, dosage, clinical condition and selected afflictions. The results show a deficiency in the precise reporting and classification of adverse events in most studies. Analysis of 57 clinical trials with probiotics and synbiotics in combination with eight follow-up studies indicate that probiotic administration to infants between 0 and 24 months is safe with regard to the evaluated strains in infants with a particular health status or susceptibility. Most adverse events and serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the study product, and there were no major safety concerns. Almost all studies concluded that none of the adverse effects were related to the study product; the study products are generally well tolerated. Finally, inconsistent, imprecise and potentially incomplete reporting as well as the variation in probiotic strains, dosages, administration regimes, study populations and reported outcomes, greatly limit the generalizability of conclusions and argue convincingly for obligatory and standardised behaviour on adverse events (CTCAE) reporting in ‘food’ studies.

Association between funding source, methodological quality and research outcomes in randomized controlled trials of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics added to infant formula: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is little or no information available on the impact of funding by the food industry on trial outcomes and methodological quality of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics research in infants. The objective of this study was to compare the methodological quality, outcomes of food industry sponsored trials versus non industry sponsored trials, with regards to supplementation of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics in infant formula.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify published and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Cochrane methodology was used to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs in the following domains: 1) sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3) blinding; 4) incomplete outcome data; 5) selective outcome reporting; and 6) other bias. Clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions were reported in frequencies and percentages. The association between source of funding, risk of bias, clinical outcomes and conclusions were assessed using Pearson's Chi-square test and the Fisher's exact test. A p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant.

RESULTS

Sixty seven completed and 3 on-going RCTs were included. Forty (59.7%) were funded by food industry, 11 (16.4%) by non-industry entities and 16 (23.9%) did not specify source of funding. Several risk of bias domains, especially sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, were not adequately reported. There was no significant association between the source of funding and sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting, majority of reported clinical outcomes or authors' conclusions. On the other hand, source of funding was significantly associated with the domains of incomplete outcome data, free of other bias domains as well as reported antibiotic use and conclusions on weight gain.

CONCLUSION

In RCTs on infants fed infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics, the source of funding did not influence the majority of outcomes in favour of the sponsors' products. More non-industry funded research is needed to further assess the impact of funding on methodological quality, reported clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions.

Growth of infants fed formula supplemented with Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 or Lactobacillus GG: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Growth is an essential outcome measure for evaluating the safety of any new ingredients, including probiotics, added to infant formulae. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effects of supplementation of infant formulae with Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 (B lactis) and/or Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) compared with unsupplemented formula on the growth of healthy infants.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched in June 2013 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in healthy term infants. Unpublished data were obtained from the manufacturer of B lactis-supplemented formula. The primary outcome measures were weight, length, and head circumference.

RESULTS

Nine eligible trials were identified. Compared with unsupplemented controls, supplementation of infant formula with B lactis had no effect on weight gain [4 RCTs, n = 266, mean difference (MD) 0.96 g/day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 2.63)], length gain (4 RCTs, n = 261, MD -0.39 mm/month, 95% CI -1.32 to 0.53), or head circumference gain (3 RCTs, n = 207, MD 0.56 mm/month, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.30). Data limited to one small (n = 105) trial suggest that infants who received standard infant formula supplemented with LGG grew significantly better. No such effect was observed in infants fed hydrolyzed formula supplemented with LGG.

CONCLUSIONS

Supplementation of infant formula with B lactis results in growth similar to what is found in infants fed unsupplemented formula. Limited data do not allow one to reach a conclusion regarding the effect of LGG supplementation on infant growth.

Growth of healthy term infants fed an extensively hydrolyzed casein-based or free amino acid-based infant formula: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

A masked, randomized, parallel growth study was conducted in infants fed an amino acid-based formula (AF) or an extensively hydrolyzed casein-based formula (HF). Infants were enrolled between 0 and 9 days and studied to 112 days of age. Growth, formula intake, stool patterns, and serum albumin concentrations were assessed. There were no significant differences between groups in weight, length, or head circumference, gains in weight or length, or study formula intake. The number of stools parents rated as being formed, and the mean daily number of stools were greater in the HF than in the AF group at 14 and 28 days of age. Mean serum albumin concentrations were not significantly different between groups and were within the normal range. This study demonstrates that AF supports normal growth of infants comparable to that of infants fed HF during the critical first 4 months of life.

Treating cow's milk protein allergy: a double-blind randomized trial comparing two extensively hydrolysed formulas with probiotics

AIM

The treatment for cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) is a diet with an extensive hydrolysate. This study aimed to determine whether a whey (eWH) or casein hydrolysate (eCH) is the best option.

METHODS

Infants with suspected CMPA were treated with an eWH or eCH, and efficacy was assessed with a symptom-based score developed by the authors. Diagnosis of CMPA was based on a positive challenge. If positive, the same eHF/eCH was continued. If negative, a standard starter and follow-up formula were given up to the age of 12 months.

RESULTS

An open challenge was performed on 85/116 (73%) infants suspected of CMPA on clinical grounds and was positive in 59/85 (69%). After 1 month, the symptom-based scores in both groups showed significant statistical and clinical reductions, and total and specific IgE and skin prick test results were similar. Both hydrolysates were enriched with probiotics, which were recovered in the gastrointestinal flora. The eWH-Standard Formula sequence led to better growth at the age of 1 year than the other three feeding regimens tested.

CONCLUSION

The eWH and eCH are equally effective. The symptom-based score is a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy of dietary treatment in infants with CMPA.

Growth and tolerance of infants fed formula supplemented with polydextrose (PDX) and/or galactooligosaccharides (GOS): double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

Background

To ensure the suitability of an infant formula as the sole source of nutrition or provide benefits similar to outcomes in breastfed infants, advancements in formula composition are warranted as more research detailing the nutrient composition of human milk becomes available. This study was designed to evaluate growth and tolerance in healthy infants who received one of two investigational cow’s milk-based formulas with adjustments in carbohydrate, fat, and calcium content and supplemented with a prebiotic blend of polydextrose (PDX) and galactooligosaccharides (GOS) or GOS alone.

Methods

In this multi-center, double-blind, parallel-designed, gender-stratified prospective study 419 infants were randomized and consumed either a marketed routine cow’s milk-based infant formula (Control; Enfamil® LIPIL®, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Evansville, IN) (n = 142) or one of two investigational formulas from 14 to 120 days of age. Investigational formulas were supplemented with 4 g/L (1:1 ratio) of a prebiotic blend of PDX and GOS (PDX/GOS; n = 139) or 4 g/L of GOS alone (GOS; n = 138). Anthropometric measurements were taken at 14, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days of age. Daily recall of formula intake, tolerance, and stool characteristics was collected during study weeks 1 and 2 and 24-h recall was collected at 60, 90, and 120 days of age. Medically-confirmed adverse events were recorded throughout the study.

Results

There were no group differences in growth rate from 14 to 120 days of age. Discontinuation rates were not significantly different among study groups. No differences in formula intake or infant fussiness or gassiness were observed. During study weeks 1 and 2 and at 60 days of age stool consistency ratings were higher (i.e. softer stools) for infants in the PDX/GOS and GOS groups versus Control and remained higher at 120 days for the PDX/GOS group (all P < 0.05). The overall incidence of medically-confirmed adverse events was similar among groups.

Conclusions

Investigational routine infant formulas supplemented with 4 g/L of either a prebiotic blend of PDX and GOS or GOS alone were well-tolerated and supported normal growth. Compared to infants who received the unsupplemented control formula, infants who received prebiotic supplementation experienced a softer stooling pattern similar to that reported in breastfed infants.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00712608

Extensively hydrolysed casein formula supplemented with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG maintains hypoallergenic status: randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the hypoallergenicity of an extensively hydrolysed (EH) casein formula supplemented with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG).

DESIGN

A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial.

SETTING

Two study sites in Italy and The Netherlands.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Children with documented cow's milk allergy were eligible for inclusion in this trial.

INTERVENTIONS

After a 7-day period of strict avoidance of cow's milk protein and other suspected food allergens, participants were tested with an EH casein formula with demonstrated hypoallergenicity (control, EHF) and a formula of the same composition with LGG added at 10(8) colony-forming units per gram powder (EHF-LGG) in randomised order in a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). After absence of adverse reactions in the DBPCFC, an open challenge was performed with EHF-LGG, followed by a 7-day home feeding period with the same formula.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Clinical assessment of any adverse reactions to ingestion of study formulae during the DBPCFC.

RESULTS

For all participants with confirmed cow's milk allergy (n=31), the DBPCFC and open challenge were classified as negative.

CONCLUSION

The EH casein formula supplemented with LGG is hypoallergenic and can be recommended for infants and children allergic to cow's milk who require an alternative to formulae containing intact cow's milk protein.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

http://ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01181297.

Supplementation of infant formula with probiotics and/or prebiotics: a systematic review and comment by the ESPGHAN committee on nutrition

Infant formulae are increasingly supplemented with probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics despite uncertainties regarding their efficacy. The present article, developed by the Committee on Nutrition of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, systematically reviews published evidence related to the safety and health effects of the administration of formulae supplemented with probiotics and/or prebiotics compared with unsupplemented formulae. Studies in which probiotics/prebiotics were not administered during the manufacturing process, but thereafter, for example in capsules, the contents of which were supplemented to infant formula or feeds, were excluded.On the basis of this review, available scientific data suggest that the administration of currently evaluated probiotic- and/or prebiotic-supplemented formula to healthy infants does not raise safety concerns with regard to growth and adverse effects. The safety and clinical effects of 1 product should not be extrapolated to other products. At present, there is insufficient data to recommend the routine use of probiotic- and/or prebiotic-supplemented formulae. The Committee considers that the supplementation of formula with probiotics and/or prebiotics is an important field of research. There is a need in this field for well-designed and carefully conducted randomised controlled trials, with relevant inclusion/exclusion criteria and adequate sample sizes. These studies should use validated clinical outcome measures to assess the effects of probiotic and/or prebiotic supplementation of formulae. Such trials should also define the optimal doses and intake durations, as well as provide more information about the long-term safety of probiotics and/or prebiotics. Because most of the trials were company funded, independent trials, preferentially financed jointly by national/governmental/European Union bodies and other international organisations, would be desirable.

Tolerance and safety of the potentially probiotic strainLactobacillus rhamnosusPRSF-L477: a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial in healthy volunteers

In Europe, the speciesLactobacillus rhamnosusis currently on the Qualified Presumption of Safety list used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for internal safety assessment, but according to the EFSA the species should remain a topic of surveillance. In the present study, the safety and tolerance of the potentially probiotic strainL. rhamnosusPRSF-L477 was investigated in a placebo-controlled double-blind volunteer trial following FAO/WHO guidelines. A total of thirty-four subjects received daily doses of 1 × 1011colony-forming units (cfu) ofL. rhamnosusPRSF-L477 (n17) or placebo (n17) for a period of 3 weeks, followed by a wash-out period of another 3 weeks. A questionnaire on gastrointestinal tolerance and a diary was kept daily to record compliance throughout these 6 weeks. Faecal and blood samples were collected for microbiological and haematological analysis. The recorded gastrointestinal symptoms, defecation frequency and stool consistency were not influenced indicating thatL. rhamnosusPRSF-L477 was well tolerated. The speciesL. rhamnosuswas detected in the faeces of sixteen out of seventeen subjects of the probiotic group during the intervention period. Using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, re-isolates ofL. rhamnosusPRSF-L477 were confirmed in nine of these subjects. Antibiotic susceptibility profiles of these re-isolates were unchanged compared with PRSF-L477. No clinically relevant changes in blood parameters such as liver and kidney function and no serious adverse events appeared during and after administration. Therefore, we conclude thatL. rhamnosusPRSF-L477 can safely be administrated to healthy subjects at a daily dose of 1 × 1011 cfu.