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 .
Long-term prevention of allergic diseases by using protein hydrolysate formula in at-risk infants.
This prospect i ve , long-term study assessed the effects of a protein hydrolysate formula on allergy prevention in infants with a family history of allergy . Infants were r and omly assigned to receive either the  hydrolysate formula ( n = 92 ) or an adapted cow milk formula  ( n = 85 ) alone or with breast-feeding for 4 months . The groups did not differ in family allergy history scores or cord blood IgE levels . After 4 months , total IgE levels and allergic reactions did not differ significantly between groups , although the hydrolysate group had a lower prevalence of eczema . At 12 months of age , neither IgE levels nor allergic reactions were significantly different . At 2 years of age , however , 18 allergic reactions had occurred in the hydrolysate group and 31 had occurred in the control group ; the differences were significant for eczema ( p < 0.001 ) but not for asthma . At 4 years of age , allergic signs were found in 11 children in the hydrolysate group and in 17 children in the control group ; the difference was significant only for eczema ( p < 0.01 ) . These results suggest that early feeding of a protein hydrolysate formula to infants at risk for allergies had a long-term preventive effect on the prevalence of eczema but not of asthma
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 .