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 .
Gastric Electrical Activity and Gastric Emptying in Preterm Newborns Fed Standard and Hydrolysate Formulas
Background Because infant formulas containing hydrolyzed cow milk protein are used to reduce feeding intolerance and to improve gastric emptying , the effect on gastrointestinal motility of a hydrolysate formula was compared with that of a st and ard preterm formula . Methods Thirty-six preterm newborns with a gestational age of 32.2 ± 2.3 weeks were assigned r and omly to st and ard formula or hydrolyzed formula .  Cutaneous electrogastrography and ultrasound examination of gastric emptying were performed simultaneously to evaluate gastrointestinal motility before and after the test meal . All recording sessions were performed 1 week after infants had reached full enteral feeding . Results No significant difference in gastrointestinal symptoms was noted in the newborns fed the different formulas . In particular , regurgitation and vomiting were observed in 78 % versus 64 % of preterm newborns after st and ard and hydrolyzed formula , respectively ( Fisher exact test , not significant ) . No differences were found in terms of gastric electrical activity and gastric emptying time between the two groups . Conclusions It seems unnecessary to use hydrolysate formulas to improve motility in preterm 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 .