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

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.

Re-evaluation of xanthan gum (E 415) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

Xanthan gum (E 415) was re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food. As a follow-up to that assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of xanthan gum (E 415) for its uses as a food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food category (FC) 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants). 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. The Panel concluded that the technical data provided by the interested business operators support an amendment of the specifications for E 415 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. Due to the low validity of the available clinical studies, the Panel concluded that a reference point could not be derived from them but the results of the available studies on neonatal piglets could serve to derive a reference point. The Panel calculated the margin of exposure for infants below 16 weeks of age consuming food for special medical purposes (FC 13.1.5.1) for the highest xanthan gum exposure and concluded that there are no safety concerns for the use of xanthan gum (E 415) as a food additive in FC 13.1.5.1.

Effects of an Extensively Hydrolyzed Formula Supplemented with Two Human Milk Oligosaccharides on Growth, Tolerability, Safety and Infection Risk in Infants with Cow's Milk Protein Allergy: A Randomized, Multi-Center Trial

This randomized clinical trial (Registration: NCT03085134) assessed if an extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) supplemented with two human milk oligosaccharides (HMO) and reduced protein content (2.20 g/100 kcal) supports normal growth in infants with cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA). Secondary outcomes were gastrointestinal tolerability, safety, and effect on infections. Nonbreastfed infants aged 0−6 months with CMPA were enrolled. Body weight, length, and head circumference were measured monthly for 4 months (primary study endpoint), after 6 months, and at the age of 12 months. Of 200 infants screened, 194 (mean age 3.2 months) were randomized. At the 4-month follow-up, daily weight gain for the test formula was noninferior to the control formula; p < 0.005. There were no significant group differences in anthropometric parameters. Both formulas were safe and well tolerated. Infants in the HMO group had a statistically significant reduction in the frequency of upper respiratory tract infections and a lower incidence of ear infections at 12 months (per protocol analysis). The relative risk of lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections was reduced by 30−40%, but this was not statistically significant due to sample size limitations. In summary, the HMO-supplemented formula supports normal growth in infants with CMPA and suggests a protective effect against respiratory and ear infections in the first year of life.

Growth in Infants with Cow's Milk Protein Allergy Fed an Amino Acid-Based Formula

PURPOSE

The present study assessed the role of an amino acid-based formula (AAF) in the growth of infants with cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA).

METHODS

Non-breastfed, term infants aged 0-6 months with symptoms suggestive of CMPA were recruited from 10 pediatric centers in China. After enrollment, infants were started on AAF for two weeks, followed by an open food challenge (OFC) with cow's milk-based formula (CMF). Infants with confirmed CMPA remained on AAF until 9 months of age, in conjunction with a cow's milk protein-free complementary diet. Body weight, length, and head circumference were measured at enrollment and 9 months of age. Measurements were converted to weight-for-age, length-for-age, and head circumference-for-age Z scores (WAZ, LAZ, HCAZ), based on the World Health Organization growth reference.

RESULTS

Of 254 infants (median age 16.1 weeks, 50.9% male), 218 (85.8%) were diagnosed with non-IgE-mediated CMPA, 33 (13.0%) tolerated CMF, and 3 (1.2%) did not complete the OFC. The mean WAZ decreased from 0.119 to -0.029 between birth and enrollment (p=0.067), with significant catch-up growth to 0.178 at 9 months of age (p=0.012) while being fed the AAF. There were no significant changes in LAZ (0.400 vs. 0.552; p=0.214) or HCAZ (-0.356 vs. -0.284; p=0.705) from the time of enrollment to age 9 months, suggesting normal linear and head growth velocity.

CONCLUSION

The amino acid-based study formula, in conjunction with a cow's milk protein-free complementary diet, supported normal growth till 9 months of age in a cohort of Chinese infants with challenge-confirmed non-IgE-mediated CMPA.

Safety evaluation of food enzyme trypsin from porcine pancreas

The food enzyme trypsin (EC 3.4.21.4) is extracted from porcine pancreas by Novozymes A/S. The food enzyme is intended to be used for hydrolysis of whey proteins employed as ingredients in infant formulae, follow-on formulae and in food for special medical purposes. Based on maximum use levels and the maximum permitted protein content in infant formula, dietary exposure to the food enzyme-total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be 32 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day for infants. The Panel considered that this value covers all population groups consuming these formulae. In the toxicological evaluation, clinical studies with pancreatic enzymes were considered. Hypersensitivity to the pharmaceuticals was identified as the major side effect. However, allergic reactions to porcine pancreatic enzymes in hydrolysed foods have not been reported. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic sensitisation to this food enzyme after consumption of products prepared by hydrolysis of milk could not be excluded in infants but considered the likelihood to be low. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of animals, the data provided by the applicant and supported by the evaluation of clinical studies based on pancreatic enzymes and the estimated dietary exposure, the Panel concluded that the trypsin from porcine pancreas does not give rise to safety concern under the intended conditions of use.

Safety evaluation of a food enzyme containing trypsin and chymotrypsin from porcine pancreas

The food enzyme is a serine protease complex containing trypsin (EC 3.4.21.4) and chymotrypsin (EC 3.4.21.1) obtained from porcine pancreas by Paninkret Chem.-Pharm. Werk GmbH. The food enzyme is currently only used in protein processing to hydrolyse milk proteins. Milk protein hydrolysates and peptides are mainly used in formulae intended to have reduced allergenicity. Based on the recommended use level and the high consumption of formulae in very young babies, dietary exposure to the food enzyme-total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be 180 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day for infants and toddlers. Toxicological evaluation was based on the available clinical studies with pancreatic enzymes. Hypersensitivity to the product was identified as the major side effect. However, the intact enzymes are inactivated during preparation of food products; therefore, the Panel considered that the likelihood of adverse effects of the intact enzyme to occur is low. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic sensitisation to these protein hydrolysates after consumption cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of occurrence was considered to be low. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of animals, the data provided and the evaluation of clinical studies with pancreatic enzymes and the estimated dietary exposure, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns when used in the production of infant formulae based on milk protein hydrolysates.

Growth, Tolerance, and Compliance of Infants Fed an Extensively Hydrolyzed Infant Formula with Added 2'-FL Fucosyllactose (2'-FL) Human Milk Oligosaccharide

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the growth, tolerance and compliance effects of an extensively hydrolyzed formula with added 2′-FL in an intended use population of infants. Methods: A non-randomized, single-group, multicenter study was conducted. Infants (0–60 days of age) with suspected food protein allergy, persistent feeding intolerance, or presenting conditions where an extensively hydrolyzed formula (eHF) was deemed appropriate were enrolled in a 2-month feeding trial. The primary outcome was maintenance of weight for age z-score during the study. Weight, length, head circumference, formula intake, tolerance measures, clinical symptoms and questionnaires were collected. Forty-eight infants were enrolled and 36 completed the study. Results: Weight for age z-scores of infants showed a statistically significant improvement from study day 1 to study day 60 (0.32 ± 0.11, p = 0.0078). Conclusions: Overall, the results of the study demonstrate that the study formula was well tolerated, safe and supported growth in the intended population.

Safety evaluation of a food enzyme containing trypsin and chymotrypsin from porcine pancreas

The food enzyme is a serine protease complex, containing trypsin (EC 3.4.21.4) and chymotrypsin (EC 3.4.21.1), obtained from porcine pancreas by Neova Technologies Inc. The serine protease complex is intended to be used for hydrolysis of whey proteins employed as ingredients of infant formulae and follow-on formulae. Based on maximum use levels and the maximum permitted protein content in infant formulae, dietary exposure to the food enzyme-total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be 18 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day for infants. In the toxicological evaluation, clinical studies with pharmaceutical preparations containing pancreatic enzymes were considered. Hypersensitivity to the pharmaceuticals was identified as the major side effect. However, allergic reactions to porcine pancreatic enzymes in hydrolysed foods have not been reported. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic sensitisation to this food enzyme after consumption of products prepared by hydrolysis of milk cannot be excluded in infants, but considers the likelihood to be low. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of animals, the data provided by the applicant, supported by the evaluation of clinical studies with pharmaceutical preparations based on pancreatic enzymes, the Panel concluded that the porcine pancreatic enzymes do not give rise to safety concern under the intended conditions of use.

Safety evaluation of a food enzyme containing trypsin, chymotrypsin, elastase and carboxypeptidase from porcine pancreas

The food enzyme is a protease complex, containing trypsin (EC 3.4.21.4), chymotrypsin (EC 3.4.21.1), pancreatic elastase (EC 3.4.21.36) and carboxypeptidase B (EC 3.4.17.2), obtained from porcine pancreas by Neova Technologies Inc. The food enzyme is intended to be used for hydrolysis of whey proteins employed as ingredients of infant formulae, follow-on formulae and in food for special medical purposes (tube feeding). Based on maximum use levels and the maximum permitted protein content in infant formula, dietary exposure to the food enzyme-total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be 36 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day for infants. The Panel estimates that this value covers all population groups. In the toxicological evaluation, clinical studies with pharmaceutical preparations containing pancreatic enzymes were considered. Hypersensitivity to the pharmaceuticals was identified as the major side effect. However, the intact enzymes are removed during preparation of food products; therefore, the Panel considers that the likelihood of adverse effects of the intact enzyme to occur is small. Low molecular weight peptides derived from the enzyme are still likely to be present in the protein hydrolysate. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic sensitisation to these peptides after consumption of products prepared by hydrolysis of milk, cannot be excluded in infants, but the likelihood to occur is considered to be low. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of animals, the data provided by the applicant, supported by the evaluation of clinical studies with pharmaceutical preparations based on pancreatic enzymes, the Panel concluded that the porcine pancreatic enzymes do not give rise to safety concern under the intended conditions of use.

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.

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.

Nutritional management of cow's milk allergy in children: An update

Cow's milk is one of the most common foods responsible for allergic reactions in children. Cow's milk allergy (CMA) involves immunoglobulin E (IgE)- and non-IgE-mediated reactions, the latter being both variable and nonspecific. Guidelines thus emphasize the need for physicians to recognize the specific syndromes of CMA and to respect strict diagnostic modalities. Whatever the clinical pattern of CMA, the mainstay of treatment is the elimination from the diet of cow's milk proteins. The challenge is that both the disease and the elimination diet may result in insufficient height and weight gain and bone mineralization. If, during CMA, the mother is not able or willing to breastfeed, the child must be fed a formula adapted to CMA dietary management, during infancy and later, if the disease persists. This type of formula must be adequate in terms of allergic efficacy and nutritional safety. In older children, when CMA persists, the use of cow's milk baked or heated at a sufficient temperature, frequently tolerated by children with CMA, may help alleviate the stringency of the elimination diet. Guidance on the implementation of the elimination diet by qualified healthcare professionals is always necessary. This guidance should also include advice to ensure adequate bone growth, especially relating to calcium intake. Specific attention should be given to children presenting with several risk factors for weak bone mineral density, i.e., multiple food allergies, vitamin D deficiency, poor sun exposure, steroid use, or severe eczema. When CMA is outgrown, a prolonged elimination diet may negatively impact the quality of the diet over the long term.

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.

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.

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.

An extensively hydrolysed casein-based formula for infants with cows' milk protein allergy: tolerance/hypo-allergenicity and growth catch-up

Children with cows' milk protein allergy (CMPA) are at risk of insufficient length and weight gain, and the nutritional efficacy of hypo-allergenic formulas should be carefully assessed. In 2008, a trial assessed the impact of probiotic supplementation of an extensively hydrolysed casein-based formula (eHCF) on acquisition of tolerance in 119 infants with CMPA. First analysis of the study results showed that the studied formula allowed improvement of food-related symptoms. The scoring of atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) index was assessed at randomisation and after 6 months of feeding. A post hoc analysis was performed using WHO growth software's nutritional survey module (WHO Anthro version 3.2.2). All infants who were fed the study formula tolerated it well. The SCORAD index significantly improved from randomisation to 6 months of feeding with the study formula. Anthropometric data indicated a significant improvement in the weight-for-age, length-for-age and weight-for-length z scores, as well as in the restoration of normal BMI. The probiotic supplementation did not show any impact on these parameters. The present data showed that this eHCF was clinically tolerated and significantly improved the SCORAD index and growth indices.