REVIEW ER 'S CONCLUSIONS There is no evidence to support feeding with a hydrolysed formula for the prevention of allergy in preference to exclusive breast feeding .
In high risk infants who are unable to be completely breast fed , there is evidence that prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed compared to a cow 's milk formula reduces infant and childhood allergy and infant CMA .
BACKGROUND Allergies and food reactions are common and may be associated with foods including adapted cow 's milk formulas .
Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy or food intolerance , and have been advocated for prevention of allergy and food intolerance in infants .
OBJECTIVES To determine whether use of hydrolysed formulas for infant feeding prevents allergy and food intolerance .
If hydrolysed formulas are effective , to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective including extensively and partially hydrolysed formulas .
To determine which infants benefit including infants at low or high risk of allergy and infants receiving early , short term or prolonged formula feeding .
Role of food protein intolerance in infants with persistent distress attributed to reflux esophagitis.
BACKGROUND Distressed behavior is common in infants and is often attributed to gastroesophageal reflux ( GER ) or food protein intolerance . OBJECTIVE To examine the effect of a hypoallergenic amino acid-based infant formula ( AAF ) on distressed behavior and GER symptoms in infants who failed to respond to extensively hydrolyzed formula and antireflux medications . STUDY DESIGN Nineteen distressed infants ( 9 boys and 10 girls ; median age , 5.0 months ) with presumed GER underwent gastroscopy ( n = 17 ) and esophageal 24-hour pH monitoring ( n = 14 ) . Double-blind placebo-controlled ( DBPC ) formula challenges of AAF versus previously besttolerated formula were conducted . RESULTS Nine infants had histologic evidence of esophagitis , and 9 had inflammatory changes in the stomach and /or duodenum . Symptoms remitted in all infants within 2 weeks of the start of feeding with AAF . On DBPC challenge after a median period of 3 months of receiving AAF , 12 infants were intolerant to active formula ( distress score , 287 vs 580 min/wk , P = . 01 ; symptom score , 23.1 vs 36.1 , P = .03 ) . Seven infants did not relapse and were considered tolerant ( distress score , 470 vs 581 , P = .77 ; symptom score , 29.5 vs 20.2 ; P = .89 ) . CONCLUSION Treatment with AAF may reduce distressed behavior and symptoms of GER in infants with food protein intolerance
REVIEW ER 'S CONCLUSIONS There is no evidence to support feeding with a hydrolysed formula for the prevention of allergy in preference to exclusive breast feeding .
In high risk infants who are unable to be completely breast fed , there is evidence that prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed compared to a cow 's milk formula reduces infant and childhood allergy and infant CMA .
BACKGROUND Allergies and food reactions are common and may be associated with foods including adapted cow 's milk formulas .
Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy or food intolerance , and have been advocated for prevention of allergy and food intolerance in infants .
OBJECTIVES To determine whether use of hydrolysed formulas for infant feeding prevents allergy and food intolerance .
If hydrolysed formulas are effective , to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective including extensively and partially hydrolysed formulas .
To determine which infants benefit including infants at low or high risk of allergy and infants receiving early , short term or prolonged formula feeding .