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 .
Hypoallergenicity and effects on growth and tolerance of a new amino acid-based formula with docosahexaenoic acid and arachidonic acid.
OBJECTIVE In study 1 , to compare the effect on growth in healthy infants of a new amino acid-based formula ( AAF )  and a control extensively hydrolyzed formula ( EHF ) , with both docosahexaenoic acid ( DHA ) and arachidonic acid ( ARA ) at levels similar to those in human milk worldwide . In study 2 , to evaluate the hypoallergenicity of this new AAF in infants and children with confirmed cow 's milk allergy ( CMA ) . STUDY DESIGN In study 1 , a total of 165 healthy , full-term , formula-fed infants r and omly received the  new AAF or control formula .  Anthropometric measurements , tolerance , and adverse events were recorded throughout the study . Plasma amino acid profiles were evaluated in a subset of the infants . In study 2 , the hypoallergenicity of the new AAF was evaluated in 32 infants and children using a double-blind , placebo-controlled food challenge ; an open challenge ; and a 7-day feeding . RESULTS In study 1 , overall growth , tolerance , and safety outcomes were similar in both groups . In study 2 , 29 of the 32 subjects completed both challenges ; no allergic reaction was seen in any of the 32 subjects . CONCLUSIONS The new AAF with DHA and ARA at levels similar to those in human milk worldwide is hypoallergenic . It also is safe and supports growth in healthy , term 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 .