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 .
Higher urinary excretion of essential amino acids in preterm infants fed protein hydrolysates
Aim : Protein hydrolysates have been introduced in preterm formulae , but it is not clear whether they are needed for the feeding of preterm infants . We design ed a r and omized , controlled trial to test the effects of a preterm formula with hydrolysed cow 's milk proteins on short‐term growth and urinary and plasma amino acids levels . Methods : Infants with a birthweight 1750 g and gestational age 34 wk fed a conventional preterm infant formula ( formula B ) or a hydrolysed formula ( formula A ) .  Weight was measured daily ; length , head circumference , mid‐arm circumference and total skinfold thickness were measured weekly . Blood and urine were analysed for amino acid concentrations at start , 14 and 28 d. Results : Twenty‐one infants met the criteria for r and omization . The daily feeding volumes were : formula A 172.8±5.6 vs formula B 170.1±2.8 ml/kg/d . Infants fed with formula A showed slower weight gain ( 17.4±3.4 vs 20.5±3.3 g/kg/d ; p=0.045 ) and lower mean change in Z‐scores for weight ( −0.18±0.16 vs 0.00±0.09 ; p=0.009 ) and for head circumference ( −0.06±0.13 vs 0.06±0.13 ; p=0.049 ) . After 14 d , infants receiving formula A had statistically significant higher urinary levels of essential amino acids compared to infants receiving formula
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 .