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 .
Challenge confirmation of late-onset reactions to extensively hydrolyzed formulas in infants with multiple food protein intolerance.
BACKGROUND Many infants with cow 's milk protein intolerance have adverse reactions to soy , casein and whey hydrolysate formula and to other foods . The recent development of Neocate , a hypoallergenic , nutritionally complete infant formula composed of individual amino acids and other nutrients , has enabled these infants to be stabilized . OBJECTIVE We observed the effect of food challenges in infants with reported hypersensitivity to hypoallergenic formulas . METHODS Eighteen infants ( median age , 7 1/2 months ) were given Neocate formula for 2 months and then underwent a 7-day double-blind placebo-controlled challenge with the formula previously best tolerated . RESULTS In 12 of the 18 infants irritability , vomiting , diarrhea , and /or eczema flares developed during the formula challenge . In two patients symptoms developed immediately , but in the remainder adverse reactions evolved within 7 days ( range , 4 to 7 days ) . Adverse reactions were to soy formula ( six patients ) , whey hydrolysate ( two ) , and casein hydrolysate ( four ) . When infants were 12 months of age , parents reported adverse reactions after the ingestion of other low allergen foods ( median , six ; from a panel of 10 such foods ) . CONCLUSION A group of infants with late-onset adverse reactions to soy , extensively hydrolyzed casein , and whey formulas and to other foods has been identified . Neocate formula proved to be an effective substitute formula for these patients
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 .