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 .
Growth and Tolerance of Healthy Term Infants Receiving Hydrolyzed Infant Formulas Supplemented With Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG: Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial
Healthy , term infants received extensively hydrolyzed casein formula ( EHF ; control ) , the same formula supplemented with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG ( EHF-LGG ) , or partially hydrolyzed whey : casein ( 60:40 ) formula supplemented with LGG ( PHF-LGG ) , in this double-blind , r and omized , controlled , parallel , prospect i ve study . Anthropometric measures and 24-hour dietary and tolerance recalls were obtained at 30 , 60 , 90 , 120 , and 150 days of age . Blood collected in a subset of infants was analyzed for fatty acid profiles in plasma and red blood cells and for markers of allergic sensitization . Adverse events were recorded throughout the study . Growth rates were not statistically different between EHF and PHF-LGG and between EHF and EHF-LGG from day 14 to day 30 , 120 , or 150 . No relevant differences in formula tolerance , adverse events , or allergic and immune markers were demonstrated between groups . The extensively and partially hydrolyzed formulas supplemented with LGG support normal growth in healthy , term infants and are well tolerated and safe
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 .