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

Re-evaluation of calcium carbonate (E 170) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of its re-evaluation as food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

Calcium carbonate (E 170) was re-evaluated in 2011 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of calcium carbonate (E 170) for its uses as a food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food category 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and as carry over in line with Annex III, Part 5 Section B to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators (IBOs) to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for calcium carbonate and that, in principle, there are no safety concern with respect to the exposure to calcium carbonate per se at the currently reported uses and use levels in all age groups of the population, including infants below 16 weeks of age. With respect to the calcium intake resulting from the use of E 170 in food for the general population and infants < 16 weeks of age, the Panel concluded that it contributes only to a small part to the overall calcium dietary exposure. However, the unavoidable presence of aluminium in E 170 is of concern and should be addressed. In addition, the Panel concluded that the technical data provided by the IBO support further amendments of the specifications for E 170 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

Molecular Mechanism and Clinical Effects of Probiotics in the Management of Cow's Milk Protein Allergy

Cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) is the most common food allergy (FA) in infancy, affecting approximately 2% of children under 4 years of age. According to recent studies, the increasing prevalence of FAs can be associated with changes in composition and function of gut microbiota or "dysbiosis". Gut microbiota regulation, mediated by probiotics, may modulate the systemic inflammatory and immune responses, influencing the development of allergies, with possible clinical benefits. This narrative review collects the actual evidence of probiotics' efficacy in the management of pediatric CMPA, with a specific focus on the molecular mechanisms of action. Most studies included in this review have shown a beneficial effect of probiotics in CMPA patients, especially in terms of achieving tolerance and improving symptoms.

Real-life data on the effectiveness of extensively hydrolyzed protein-based formula and amino acid-based formula in regaining weight and height in infants on a cow's milk protein elimination diet

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of extensively hydrolyzed protein-based formula (EHF) or amino acid-based formula (AAF) in reversing the weight and height deficit in infants on a cow's milk protein elimination diet.

METHODS

Infants from a retrospective cohort who were fed EHF (n = 17) or AAF (n = 16) for at least 2 months on a cow's milk protein elimination diet were included. The weight and height values recorded in the infants' medical records were obtained.

RESULTS

The mean age of the infants at the start of EHF and AAF were 5.8 ± 2.6 and 4.4 ± 2.5 months, respectively (P = 0.061). There was no difference between the groups in terms of the monthly weight gain (373.0 ± 212.2 and 453.1 ± 138.5 g, P = 0.223, respectively, for EHF and AAF), while the monthly increase in height was greater in the group fed with AAF (1.3 ± 0.5 and 1.8 ± 0.6, P = 0.030). A comparison between the difference in the initial z-score and in the oral challenge test of weight-for-age (+0.7 ± 1.2 and +1.3 ± 1.4, P = 0.262, respectively, for the EHF and AAF groups), height-for-age (+0.2 ± 1.1 and +1.2 ± 1.8, P = 0.090), and body mass index (BMI)-for-age (+0.7 ± 1.3 and +0.7 ± 1.5, P = 0.971) did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the groups. Correlation coefficients showed that the greater the initial nutritional deficit, the greater the positive variation between the beginning of each formula and the oral challenge test.

CONCLUSION

EHF and AAF provided similar increases in the weight-for-age, height-for-age, and BMI-for-age z-scores in both groups. The monthly increase in height was greater in infants who received AAF.

Current Guidelines and Future Strategies for the Management of Cow's Milk Allergy

Abstract

Exclusive breast feeding is recommended in all guidelines as the first choice feeding. Cow milk allergy (CMA) can be diagnosed by a diagnostic elimination diet for 2 to 4 weeks with a hypo-allergenic formula, followed by a challenge test with intact cow milk protein. The most often used hypo-allergenic formula for the diagnostic elimination diet and the therapeutic diet is a CM based extensive hydrolysate. CM-based partial hydrolysates cannot be recommended in the management of CMA because of insufficient efficacy and possible reactions, but about half of the infants with CMA may tolerate a partial hydrolysate. The pros and cons of other dietary options are discussed in this paper. The use of an amino acid-based formula and/or rice based hydrolysate formula during the diagnostic elimination and therapeutic diet is debated. When available, there is sufficient evidence to consider rice hydrolysates as an adequate alternative to CM-based hydrolysates, since some infants will still react to the CM hydrolysate. The pros and cons of dietary options such as soy formula, buckwheat, almond, pea or other plant based dietary products are discussed. Although the majority of the plant-based beverages are nutritionally inadequate, some are nutritionally adapted for toddlers. However, accessibility and content vary by country and, thus far there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy and tolerance of these plant-based drinks (except for soy formula and rice hydrolysates) to provide an opinion on them.

Conclusion

A diagnostic elimination diet, followed by a challenge remains the diagnostic standard. The use of an awareness tool may result in a decrease of delayed diagnosis. Breastmilk remains the ideal source of nutrition and when not available a CM extensively hydrolyzed formula, rice hydrolysate or amino acid formula should be recommended. More evidence is needed regarding plant-based drinks.

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.

Opinion on the re‐evaluation of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304i) 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

Ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) was re‐evaluated in 2015 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow‐up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) for its uses as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and as carry over in line with Annex III, Part 5 Section B to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re‐evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. On the basis of the data submitted by interested business operators and the considerations from the Panel, a revision of the existing EU specifications for ascorbyl palmitate (E 304 (i)) has been recommended. Based on in vitro data, the FAF Panel assumed that ascorbyl palmitate fully hydrolyses pre‐systemically to ascorbic acid and palmitate. The Panel concluded that the intake of both metabolites, at the MPLs for ascorbyl palmitate as a food additive in infant formula belonging to FC 13.1.1 or in food for special medical purposes belonging to FC 13.1.5.1, does not raise health concerns.

Design, quality, safety and efficacy of extensively hydrolyzed formula for management of cow's milk protein allergy: What are the challenges?

Cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) is one of the most common food allergies in infancy. Clinical food allergy guidelines recommend an extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) as the first-line treatment in nonbreastfed infants with CMPA. Designing and commercializing EHF poses both technical and regulatory challenges. Each manufacturing step, from sourcing of raw materials to release of the final product, needs to be managed in accordance with comprehensive quality systems. To avoid cross-contamination via externally sourced ingredients, suppliers should be carefully selected based on quality requirements. Strict zoning of the manufacturing areas according to contamination risk and air flow control are effective strategies to prevent accidental allergen contamination. Furthermore, dedicated manufacturing lines for hypoallergenic products are used to prevent potential cross-contamination from other products produced on the same line. The enzymatic hydrolysis, heat treatment and ultrafiltration used are specific to each manufacturer. Consequently, EHF are a heterogenous group of products with differences in the molecular weight profile of peptides, content of residual immunogenic cow's milk allergens, and residual in-vitro allergenicity. These differences are likely to affect clinical efficacy and safety. As not all commercialized EHF products have undergone formal testing in the laboratory and clinical trials, there is a need to develop guidelines for minimum technical and regulatory requirements for EHF products, including validated assays for ongoing quality control. Clinical trials assessing new EHF products for their hypoallergenicity and ability to support normal growth remain the definitive proof of efficacy and safety in infants and young children with CMPA.

Effects of animal protein supplementation of mothers, preterm infants, and term infants on growth outcomes in childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Child stunting is a major public health problem, afflicting 155 million people worldwide. Lack of animal-source protein has been identified as a risk, but effects of animal protein supplementation are not well established.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate effects of animal protein supplementation in mothers, preterm infants, and term infants/children on birth and growth outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature were searched for randomized controlled trials of animal protein supplementation in mothers or infants and children (≤age 5 y), evaluating measures of anthropometry (≤age 18 y). Main outcomes included birth weight, low birth weight, small for gestational age at birth; height, height-for-age, weight, weight-for-age, weight-for-length, stunting, and wasting ≤18 y of age. Data were extracted independently in duplicate, and findings pooled using inverse variance meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was explored using I2, stratified analysis, and meta-regression, and publication bias by funnel plots, Egger's test, and fill/trim methods.

RESULTS

Of 6808 unique abstracts and 357 full-text articles, 62 trials were included. The 62 trials comprised over 30,000 participants across 5 continents, including formula-based supplementation in infants and food-based supplementation in pregnancy and childhood. Maternal supplementation increased birth weight by 0.06 kg, and both formula and food-based supplementation in term infants/young children increased weight by ≤0.14 kg. Neither formula nor food-based supplementation for term infants/young children increased height, whereas the height-for-age z-score was increased in the food-based (+0.06 z-score) but not formula-based (-0.11 z-score) trials reporting this outcome. In term infants, the weight-for-length z-score was increased in trials of formula (+0.24 z-score) and food supplementation (+0.06 z-score), whereas food supplementation was also associated with reduced odds of stunting (-13%).

CONCLUSIONS

Supplementation of protein from animal-source foods generally increased weight and weight-for-length in children, but with more limited effects on other growth outcomes such as attained height.

Prevalence of Metabolic Bone Disease in Tube-Fed Children Receiving Elemental Formula

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest normal mineral status in children receiving elemental formula. However, a recent multicenter survey described 51 children who developed hypophosphatemia and bone disease while receiving elemental formula. Our aim is to determine the prevalence of metabolic bone disease in children receiving extensively hydrolyzed or amino acid-based formula.

METHODS

We established a retrospective cohort using an institutional database of tube-fed children. We defined a "confirmed case" as a child with biochemical and radiographic evidence of bone disease (rickets and/or low-trauma fractures). We defined a "suspected case" as a child who had biochemical evidence and/or radiographic evidence of bone disease but with incomplete data during the review period.

RESULTS

A total of 102 tube-fed children receiving elemental or semi-elemental formula were identified. The four elemental and semi-elemental formulas evaluated were Neocate®, EleCare®, Pregestimil®, and Alimentum®. Not all children had complete monitoring data performed during the review period. Of the children receiving Neocate who had monitoring data (46%), 23% developed hypophosphatemia and radiographic abnormalities (fractures or rickets), which resolved with phosphorus supplementation and/or change in the formula brand.

CONCLUSIONS

We estimate that at least 11% and up to 23% of all tube-fed children receiving Neocate develop metabolic bone disease. Based upon the estimated prevalence, we recommend cautious use of this formula with monitoring for evolving bone disease in this population.

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.

Growth and Clinical Variables in Nitrogen-Restricted Piglets Fed an Adjusted Essential Amino Acid Mix: Effects of Partially Intact Protein-Based Diets

Background

Current recommendations for protein levels in infant formula are intended to ensure that growth matches or exceeds growth of breastfed infants, but may provide a surplus of amino acids (AAs). Recent infant studies with AA-based formulas support specific adjustment of the essential amino acid (EAA) composition allowing for potential lowering of total protein levels. With the use of a combination of intact protein and free EAAs, we designed a formula that meets these adjusted EAA requirements for infants.

Objective

Our objective was to test whether this adjusted formula is safe and supports growth in a protein-restricted piglet model, and whether it shows better growth than an isonitrogenous formula based on free AAs.

Methods

Term piglets (Landrace × Yorkshire × Duroc, n = 72) were fed 1 of 4 isoenergetic formulas containing 70% intact protein and 30% of an EAA mixture or a complete AA-based control for 20 d: standard formula (ST-100), ST-100 with 25% reduction in proteinaceous nitrogen (ST-75), ST-75 with an adjusted EAA composition (O-75), or a diet as O-75, given as a complete AA-based diet (O-75AA).

Results

After an initial adaptation period, ST-75 and O-75 pigs showed similar growth rates, both lower than ST-100 pigs (∼25 compared with 31 g · kg-1 · d-1, respectively). The O-75AA pigs showed further reduced growth rate (15 g · kg-1 · d-1) and fat proportion (both P < 0.05, relative to O-75).

Conclusions

Formula based partly on intact protein is superior to AA-based formula in this experimental setting. The 25% lower, but EAA-adjusted, partially intact protein-based formula resulted in similar weight gain with a concomitant increased AA catabolism, compared with the standard 25% lower standard formula in artificially reared, protein-restricted piglets. Further studies should investigate if and how the specific EAA adjustments that allow for lowering of total protein levels will affect growth and body composition development in formula-fed infants.

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.

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.

Amino Acid-based Formula in Cow's Milk Allergy: Long-term Effects on Body Growth and Protein Metabolism

OBJECTIVES

The long-term effects of amino acid-based formula (AAF) in the treatment of cow's milk allergy (CMA) are largely unexplored. The present study comparatively evaluates body growth and protein metabolism in CMA children treated with AAF or with extensively hydrolyzed whey formula (eHWF), and healthy controls.

METHODS

A 12-month multicenter randomized control trial was conducted in outpatients with CMA (age 5-12 m) randomized in 2 groups, treated with AAF (group 1) and eHWF (group 2), and compared with healthy controls (group 3) fed with follow-on (if age <12 months) or growing-up formula (if age >12 months). At enrolment (T0), after 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 months (T12) a clinical evaluation was performed. At T0 and T3, in subjects with CMA serum levels of albumin, urea, total protein, retinol-binding protein, and insulin-like growth factor 1 were measured.

RESULTS

Twenty-one subjects in group 1 (61.9% boys, age 6.5 ± 1.5 months), 19 in group 2 (57.9% boys, age 7 ± 1.7 months) and 25 subjects in group 3 (48% boys, age 5.5 ± 0.5 months) completed the study. At T0, the weight z score was similar in group 1 (-0.74) and 2 (-0.76), with differences compared to group 3 (-0.17, P < 0.05). At T12, the weight z score value was similar between the 3 groups without significant differences. There were no significant changes in protein metabolism in children in groups 1 and 2.

CONCLUSION

Long-term treatment with AAF is safe and allows adequate body growth in children with CMA.

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.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing Growth of Infants Fed a 100% Whey Extensively Hydrolyzed Formula Compared With a Casein-Based Extensively Hydrolyzed Formula

This study compared the growth of healthy infants fed a hypoallergenic 100% whey-based extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) with Bifidobacterium lactis (test) with that of infants fed an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula (control). Formula-fed infants (14 ± 3 days) were randomized to test or control groups until 112 days of age. Anthropometrics were assessed at 14, 28, 56, 84, and 112 days, and daily records were kept for 2 days prior to study visits. Serum albumin and plasma amino acids at 84 days were assessed in a subset. A total of 282 infants were randomized (124 test, 158 control). Significantly more infants dropped out of the control (56%) as compared with the test (41%) group. Mean daily weight gain was significantly higher in the test group compared with the control group (27.95 ± 5.91 vs 25.93 ± 6.12 g/d; P = .027) with the test group reporting significantly fewer stools (2.2 vs 3.6 stools/d; P < .0001). The control group reported significantly more days with >3 loose stools/d and a higher incidence of vomiting as compared with the test group. There were no differences in gas, mood, sleep, or serum albumin. Plasma arginine and valine were significantly lower in the test group, whereas leucine and lysine were higher; all values were within normal limits. Significantly more adverse events attributed to the study formula were reported in the control group. The 100% whey-based hypoallergenic EHF containing Bifidobacterium lactis and medium chain triglycerides supported growth of healthy infants. Future studies on the application of this formula in clinically indicated populations are warranted.

Assessment of Growth of Infants Fed an Amino Acid-Based Formula

OBJECTIVE

This study’s primary aim was to compare the growth (daily weight gain) of infants consuming a new (Test) amino acid-based formula (AAF) or a commercially available AAF (Control).

METHODS

Healthy infants were randomized to Test or Control from 14 to 112 days of age. Anthropometric measurements were taken at 14, 28, 56, 84, and 112 days of age. Tolerance records were completed prior to each visit. Serum albumin and plasma amino acids were ascertained in a subset of infants at 84 days of age.

RESULTS

A total of 119 subjects completed the study per protocol. Mean daily weight gains were 27.26 ± 4.92 g/day for Control and 27.42 ± 6.37 g/day for Test (P = 0.8812). There were no significant differences between groups in formula intake, adverse events, flatulence, spit-up/vomiting, mood, or sleep. Albumin and plasma amino acids were within normal limits for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Infants fed the new AAF had similar daily weight gains as infants fed a commercially available AAF.

Evaluation of a free amino acid-based formula in infants with presumptive food protein-induced proctocolitis

Objective:

Food protein–induced proctocolitis usually occurs early in life and is characterized by blood-streaked stools and pain during defecation in an otherwise healthy infant. While many infants with food protein–induced proctocolitis respond well to a casein hydrolysate formula, some require an amino acid–based formula. The objective of the study was to measure the change in physician-rated symptom score from enrollment to study completion in infants with presumptive food protein–induced proctocolitis fed with a specific amino acid-based formula.

Methods:

In this study, infants ≤6 months of age diagnosed with presumptive food protein–induced proctocolitis received an amino acid-based formula for 42 days. Intake, stool patterns, weight, stool occult blood, and questionnaires assessing infant feeding and stool patterns and parental formula satisfaction were collected.

Results:

The full analysis set included 43 infants. The mean age at enrollment was 59 ± 5 days. A significant improvement was observed from enrollment to exit in physician-rated symptom score (9.1 ± 0.5 to 4.8 ± 0.5, p < 0.0001), the number of infants with occult blood in stool, and weight-for-age Z-scores during the study. Parental satisfaction with the formula was high.

Conclusion:

The results confirm that the amino acid-based formula studied is efficacious for managing symptoms of presumptive food protein–induced proctocolitis.

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.

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.

Two single group, prospective, baseline-controlled feeding studies in infants and children with chronic diarrhea fed a hypoallergenic free amino acid-based formula

Background

Infants and children with chronic diarrhea (CD) often require specialized foods or parenteral nutrition (PN) to achieve adequate nutrient intakes to support growth and development. We assessed the efficacy of an amino acid-based formula (AAF) in supporting growth and improving symptoms in infants and children with CD from multiple etiologies.

Methods

Two studies were conducted: CD study in children (CD-C) and CD study in infants (CD-I). Each was a single group, baseline-controlled study in which each subject served as his/her own control. At enrollment, all subjects had CD lasting > 2 weeks and had ≥ 4 stools/day. Subjects were fed an AAF for 80 days starting at SD5, and were assessed at SD 28 and 84.

Results

CD-C: 18 of 19 subjects completed the study. At enrollment, the mean age was 5.6 ± 0.7 years, the most common diagnosis was short bowel syndrome (SBS) (n = 13), and 5 subjects with SBS were on PN. Subjects achieved significant increases in weight-for-age z-scores (p = 0.026). Over 50% of subjects achieved improvements in clinical outcomes targeted most frequently by their physicians. Of the five subjects on PN at enrollment, four had substantial weight gain and four had their PN requirements decreased. CD-I: 22 of 27 subjects completed the study. At enrollment, the mean age was 3.3 ± 0.3 months, the most common diagnosis was food allergy (n = 20), and no subjects were on PN. Subjects achieved significant increases in weight-for-age z-scores (p = 0.0023), significant decreases in the number of stools/day (p = 0.0012), and improvements in stool consistency (p = 0.0024). Over 80% of subjects achieved improvements in the clinical outcomes targeted most frequently by their physicians.

Conclusions

Infants and children with CD fed an AAF for three months displayed significant improvements in weight-for-age z-scores and clinical symptoms. Children dependent on PN also grew well and four of five decreased their dependence on PN.

Trial registration

Both trials were registered on ClinTrials.gov (CD-C, NCT01812629; CD-I, NCT01820494).