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 .
A Comparative Evaluation of Whey Hydrolysate and Whey-Predominant Formulas
Whey hydrolysate formulas are a recent and important innovation in infant feeding . This study compared clinical tolerance and acceptability of a whey hydrolysate formula ( WH ) with those of a whey-predominant formula ( WF ) in 45 infants . Four infants ( 16 % ) who refused to drink WH formula  were eliminated from the study . Mean volume intake was significantly lower for WH ( 120 mL/kg/day ) than for WF ( 147 mL/kg/day ; P < .001 ) . Consequently , mean caloric intake was also significantly different : 80 kcal/kg/day ( WF ) vs 97 kcal/kg/day ( WF ; P < .001 ) . Nevertheless , weight gain from birth to 13 weeks of age was nearly identical in both groups ( 171 % for WH vs 178 % for WF ) . No significant differences were noted in duration of feeding , number of pauses during feeding , number of stools per day , or number of regurgitations per day . The lower rate of caloric intake and the dropout rate of 16 % for WH raise questions about the use of WH formula in normal infants , as has become the case in some Western European regions
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 .