REVIEW ER 'S CONCLUSIONS There is no evidence to support feeding with a hydrolysed formula for the prevention of allergy in preference to exclusive breast feeding .
In high risk infants who are unable to be completely breast fed , there is evidence that prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed compared to a cow 's milk formula reduces infant and childhood allergy and infant CMA .
BACKGROUND Allergies and food reactions are common and may be associated with foods including adapted cow 's milk formulas .
Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy or food intolerance , and have been advocated for prevention of allergy and food intolerance in infants .
OBJECTIVES To determine whether use of hydrolysed formulas for infant feeding prevents allergy and food intolerance .
If hydrolysed formulas are effective , to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective including extensively and partially hydrolysed formulas .
To determine which infants benefit including infants at low or high risk of allergy and infants receiving early , short term or prolonged formula feeding .
Gastric Electrical Activity and Gastric Emptying in Preterm Newborns Fed Standard and Hydrolysate Formulas
Background Because infant formulas containing hydrolyzed cow milk protein are used to reduce feeding intolerance and to improve gastric emptying , the effect on gastrointestinal motility of a hydrolysate formula was compared with that of a st and ard preterm formula . Methods Thirty-six preterm newborns with a gestational age of 32.2 ± 2.3 weeks were assigned r and omly to st and ard formula or hydrolyzed formula .  Cutaneous electrogastrography and ultrasound examination of gastric emptying were performed simultaneously to evaluate gastrointestinal motility before and after the test meal . All recording sessions were performed 1 week after infants had reached full enteral feeding . Results No significant difference in gastrointestinal symptoms was noted in the newborns fed the different formulas . In particular , regurgitation and vomiting were observed in 78 % versus 64 % of preterm newborns after st and ard and hydrolyzed formula , respectively ( Fisher exact test , not significant ) . No differences were found in terms of gastric electrical activity and gastric emptying time between the two groups . Conclusions It seems unnecessary to use hydrolysate formulas to improve motility in preterm infants
REVIEW ER 'S CONCLUSIONS There is no evidence to support feeding with a hydrolysed formula for the prevention of allergy in preference to exclusive breast feeding .
In high risk infants who are unable to be completely breast fed , there is evidence that prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed compared to a cow 's milk formula reduces infant and childhood allergy and infant CMA .
BACKGROUND Allergies and food reactions are common and may be associated with foods including adapted cow 's milk formulas .
Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy or food intolerance , and have been advocated for prevention of allergy and food intolerance in infants .
OBJECTIVES To determine whether use of hydrolysed formulas for infant feeding prevents allergy and food intolerance .
If hydrolysed formulas are effective , to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective including extensively and partially hydrolysed formulas .
To determine which infants benefit including infants at low or high risk of allergy and infants receiving early , short term or prolonged formula feeding .