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 .
Hydrolysed protein accelerates the gastrointestinal transport of formula in preterm infants
Vomiting , large gastric residuals and abdominal distension are common in very immature infants on formula feeding . The present trial investigated whether a protein hydrolysate formula reduces the gastrointestinal transit time in preterm infants . Fifteen preterm infants ( median gestational age 29 ( 24–32 ) wk , birthweight 1241 ( 660–1900 ) g , postnatal age 18 ( 5–54 ) d ) on full enteral feeds ( > 150 ml/kg*d ) were enrolled . It was hypothesized that the gastrointestinal transit time is at least 2 h shorter when protein hydrolysate formula is fed compared with st and ard preterm formula . In a r and omized cross‐over design study , each formula was fed for 5 d. On days 4 and 9 the gastrointestinal transit time was estimated using carmine red . The protein hydrolysate formula had a markedly shorter gastrointestinal transit time ( 9.8 h ) than the st and ard formula ( 19 h ) ( p= 0.0022 , two‐sided Mann‐Whitney U test )
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 .