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 .
Extensively and partially hydrolysed preterm formulas in the prevention of allergic diseases in preterm infants: a randomized, double‐blind trial
Aim : A r and omized , double‐blind study was conducted to evaluate whether use of protein hydrolysate‐based preterm formulas in infants with an atopic predisposition helps prevent the development of allergic diseases . Methods : Preterm infants ( n= 122 ) with at least one first‐degree relative ( parent or sibling ) with allergic disease were r and omly assigned to receive an extensively or partially hydrolysed preterm formula ( intervention groups ) or a st and ard preterm formula until 4 to 5 mo of age . Infants whose parents preferred that they be breastfed received their mothers ' fortified breast milk . Results : Intention‐to‐treat analysis showed that the overall incidence of allergic diseases did not significantly differ between groups at both 4–5 and 12 mo of age . However , by 12 mo , use of the extensively hydrolysed versus the st and ard preterm formula had significantly reduced the risk of atopic dermatitis . At 4–5 and 12 mo , there was a significantly increased risk of non‐acceptance of the extensively hydrolysed formula compared with the other formulas
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 .