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
BACKGROUND Infant formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been widely advocated for preventing allergic disease in infants , in place of st and ard 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 .
Extensively and partially hydrolysed infant formulas for allergy prophylaxis
The allergy preventive effect of extensively ( N ) and partially ( PH ) hydrolysed cows ’ milk formulas compared with a regular formula ( RM ) was assessed in 155 infants with a family history of allergy . No cows ’ milk was given during the first nine months of life and no egg and fish  up to 12 months of age . Breast feeding mothers avoided the same foods . At weaning the infants were r and omised to one of the formula groups . The cumulative incidence of atopic symptoms at 18 months was 51 , 64 , and 84 % in the N , PH , and RM groups , respectively . From 6 to 18 months there were significantly less cumulative atopic symptoms in the N group compared with the RM group , and significantly less than the PH group up to 6 ( N = 25 % ; PH = 46 % ) and 9 months ( N = 34 % , PH = 58 % ) . At 9 months significantly fewer infants in the N group ( 10 % ) than in the PH group ( 33 % ) had a positive skin prick test to eggs . The findings support an allergy preventive effect of an extensively hydrolysed formula , but not of a partially hydrolysed formula , during the first 18 months of life of high risk infants
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
BACKGROUND Infant formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been widely advocated for preventing allergic disease in infants , in place of st and ard 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 .