Dataset Information

Tolerance of a standard intact protein formula versus a partially hydrolyzed formula in healthy, term infants.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Parents who perceive common infant behaviors as formula intolerance-related often switch formulas without consulting a health professional. Up to one-half of formula-fed infants experience a formula change during the first six months of life.

Methods

The objective of this study was to assess discontinuance due to study physician-assessed formula intolerance in healthy, term infants. Infants (335) were randomized to receive either a standard intact cow milk protein formula (INTACT) or a partially hydrolyzed cow milk protein formula (PH) in a 60 day non-inferiority trial. Discontinuance due to study physician-assessed formula intolerance was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included number of infants who discontinued for any reason, including parent-assessed.

Results

Formula intolerance between groups (INTACT, 12.3% vs. PH, 13.7%) was similar for infants who completed the study or discontinued due to study physician-assessed formula intolerance. Overall study discontinuance based on parent- vs. study physician-assessed intolerance for all infants (14.4 vs.11.1%) was significantly different (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated no difference in infant tolerance of intact vs. partially hydrolyzed cow milk protein formulas for healthy, term infants over a 60-day feeding trial, suggesting nonstandard partially hydrolyzed formulas are not necessary as a first-choice for healthy infants. Parents frequently perceived infant behavior as formula intolerance, paralleling previous reports of unnecessary formula changes.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00666120.

SUBMITTER: Berseth CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2708183 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tolerance of a standard intact protein formula versus a partially hydrolyzed formula in healthy, term infants.

Berseth Carol Lynn CL Mitmesser Susan Hazels SH Ziegler Ekhard E EE Marunycz John D JD Vanderhoof Jon J

Nutrition journal 20090619

<h4>Background</h4>Parents who perceive common infant behaviors as formula intolerance-related often switch formulas without consulting a health professional. Up to one-half of formula-fed infants experience a formula change during the first six months of life.<h4>Methods</h4>The objective of this study was to assess discontinuance due to study physician-assessed formula intolerance in healthy, term infants. Infants (335) were randomized to receive either a standard intact cow milk protein formu ...[more]

PMID: 19545360

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOptimal protein level in hypoallergenic infant formulas is an area of ongoing investigation. The aim was to evaluate growth of healthy term infants who received extensively hydrolyzed (EH) or amino acid (AA)-based formulas with reduced protein.MethodsIn this prospective, multi-center, double-blind, controlled, parallel group study, infants were randomized to receive a marketed EH casein infant formula at 2.8 g protein/100 kcal (Control) or one of two investigational formulas: EH casein formula at 2.4 g protein/100 kcal (EHF) or AA-based formula at 2.4 g total protein equivalents/100 kcal (AAF). Control and EHF each had 2 × 107 CFU Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/100 kcal. Anthropometrics were measured and recall of formula intake, tolerance, and stool characteristics was collected at 14, 30, 60, 90, 120 days of age. Primary outcome was weight growth rate (g/day) between 14 and 120 days of age (analyzed by ANOVA). Medically confirmed adverse events were recorded throughout the study.ResultsNo group differences in weight or length growth rate from 14 to 120 days were detected. With the exception of significant differences at several study time points for males, no group differences were detected in mean head circumference growth rates. However, mean achieved weight, length, and head circumference demonstrated normal growth throughout the study period. No group differences in achieved weight or length (males and females) and head circumference (females) were detected and means were within the WHO growth 25th and 75th percentiles from 14 to 120 days of age. With the exception of Day 90, there were no statistically significant group differences in achieved head circumference for males; means remained between the WHO 50th and 75th percentiles for growth at Days 14, 30, and 60 and continued along the 75th percentile through Day 120. No differences in study discontinuation due to formula were detected. The number of participants for whom at least one adverse event was reported was similar among groups.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated hypoallergenic infant formulas at 2.4 g protein/100 kcal were safe, well-tolerated, and associated with appropriate growth in healthy term infants from 14 to 120 days of age.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01354366 . Registered 13 May 2011.

Project description:Abstract Objectives The first year of life is a critical window for appropriate enteric microbiome development. Variations in infant diets have persistent effects on gut microbial ecology. Compared to intact protein formulas (IPF), partially hydrolyzed infant formulas (PHF) contain broken down milk proteins and may impact development of atopic conditions in high-risk infants. However, the effects of PHFs on the developing gut microbiome are not known. Methods This study was a secondary analysis of the GLOWING study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01131117). Infant stool samples were collected at 6 months of age and microbial composition was examined via 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing (V4 region) using standardized methods. Samples were grouped by primary feeding type: Exclusive breastfeeding (BF; n = 42), IPF (n = 17), or PHF (n = 12). We used linear models to examine the effects of feeding type adjusting for lifetime breastfeeding exposure at 6 mo. Group differences in α-diversity (richness and diversity) and relative abundances were assessed by ANOVA or t-test. Between-specimen diversity (β-diversity) was assessed using Bray − Curtis dissimilarities. Results Total breast milk exposure did not differ between PHF and IPF (mean 32.3% of feeds from human milk, p = 0.08). Analysis of α-diversity showed higher evenness (Shannon, Simpson) in IPF and higher richness (Chao1, Observed OTU) in PHF. However, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for breastmilk exposure. β-diversity did not differ between groups. At the genus level compared to BF, infants fed IPF had higher abundance of Parabacteroides, while those fed PHF had higher Erwinia and Clostridium. Peptostreptococcaceae family was also increased in PHF fed infants. Compared to IPF, the PHF group had higher abundance of Clostridium genus, and Peptostreptococcaceae and Enterobacteriaceae families. Elevated Enterobacteriaceae and Clostridiales have previously been found in children with food allergies. Conclusions Our results suggest that partially hydrolyzed infant formulas may have modest impacts on the gut microbiome compared to intact protein formulas. Larger samples sizes are needed to fully characterize these differences and potential influence on long-term health. Funding Sources U.S. Department of Agriculture, NIDDK.

Project description:BackgroundWhen human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate, rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins), is often used because it is perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of feeding preterm infants hydrolysed formula (vs standard cow's milk formula) on risk of feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, and other morbidity and mortality.Search methodsWe used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2019); Ovid Embase (1980 to 28 January 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (28 January 2019), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.Selection criteriaRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe identified 11 trials for inclusion in the review. All trials were small (total participants 665) and had various methodological limitations including uncertainty about methods to ensure allocation concealment and blinding. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of less than about 34 weeks' gestational age or with birth weight less than about 1750 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth restricted. Most trials found no effects on feed intolerance, assessed variously as mean pre-feed gastric residual volume, incidence of abdominal distension or other gastrointestinal signs of concern, or time taken to achieve full enteral feeds (meta-analysis was limited because studies used different measures). Meta-analysis showed no effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.34; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 5 trials, 385 infants) (low-certainty evidence; downgraded for imprecision and design weaknesses).Authors' conclusionsThe identified trials provide only low-certainty evidence about the effects of feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard formula. Existing data do not support conclusions that feeding protein hydrolysate affects the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis. Additional large, pragmatic trials are needed to provide more reliable and precise estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundWhen human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins) are often used because they are perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of feeding preterm infants with hydrolysed formula (versus standard cow's milk formulas) on the risk of feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, and other morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.Search methodsWe used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to April 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.Selection criteriaRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe identified 11 trials for inclusion in the review. All trials were small (total participants 665) and had various methodological limitations including uncertainty about methods to ensure allocation concealment and blinding. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of gestational age less than about 34 weeks or birth weight less than about 1750 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted. Most trials found no effects on feed intolerance assessed variously as mean prefeed gastric residual volume, incidence of abdominal distention or other concerning gastrointestinal signs, or time taken to achieve full enteral feeds (meta-analysis was limited because studies used different measures). Meta-analysis found no effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.34; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 5 trials, 385 infants) (low quality evidence; downgraded for imprecision and design weaknesses).Authors' conclusionsThe identified trials provide only low quality evidence about the effects of feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard formula. The existing data did not support conclusions that feeding with protein hydrolysate affects the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis. Further large, pragmatic trials are needed to provide more reliable and precise estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Project description:IntroductionMilk fat globule membrane (MFGM) is a complex lipid-protein structure in mammalian milk and human milk that is largely absent from breastmilk substitutes. The objective of this trial is to investigate whether providing infant formula enriched with MFGM versus standard infant formula improves cognitive development at 12 months of age in exclusively formula-fed full-term infants.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised, controlled, clinician-blinded, researcher-blinded and participant-blinded trial of two parallel formula-fed groups and a breastfed reference group that were recruited in the suburban Adelaide (Australia) community by a single study centre (a medical research institute). Healthy, exclusively formula-fed, singleton, term-born infants under 8 weeks of age were randomised to either an MFGM-supplemented formula (intervention) or standard infant formula (control) from enrolment until 12 months of age. The reference group was not provided with formula. The primary outcome is the Cognitive Scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Fourth Edition (Bayley-IV) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are the Bayley-IV Cognitive Scale at 24 months, other Bayley-IV domains (language, motor, emotional and behavioural development) at 12 and 24 months of age, infant attention at 4 and 9 months of age, parent-rated language at 12 and 24 months of age, parent-rated development at 6 and 18 months of age as well as growth, tolerance and safety of the study formula. To ensure at least 80% power to detect a 5-point difference in the mean Bayley-IV cognitive score, >200 infants were recruited in each group.Ethics and disseminationThe Women's and Children Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee reviewed and approved the study (HREC/19/WCHN/140). Caregivers gave written informed consent prior to enrolling in the trial. Findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberACTRN12620000552987; Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: anzctr.org.au.

Dataset Information

Tolerance of a standard intact protein formula versus a partially hydrolyzed formula in healthy, term infants.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Tolerance of a standard intact protein formula versus a partially hydrolyzed formula in healthy, term infants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets