Dataset Information

Bioactive Compounds in Infant Formula and Their Effects on Infant Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: Infant formulas are an alternative to replace or supplement human milk when breastfeeding is not possible. The knowledge of human milk's bioactive compounds and their beneficial effects has attracted the interest of researchers in the field of infant nutrition, as well as researchers of technology and food sciences that seek to improve the nutritional characteristics of infant formulas. Several scientific studies evaluate the optimization of infant formula composition. The bioactive compound inclusion has been used to upgrade the quality and nutrition of infant formulas. In this context, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to assess the scientific evidence of bioactive compounds present in infant formulas (α-lactalbumin, lactoferrin, taurine, milk fat globule membrane, folates, polyamines, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, prebiotics, and probiotics) and their effects on infant nutrition and health. Through previously determined criteria, studies published in the last fifteen years from five different databases were included to identify the advances in the optimization of infant formula composition. Over the last few years, there has been optimization of the infant formula composition, not only to increase the similarities in their content of macro and micronutrients but also to include novel bioactive ingredients with potential health benefits for infants. Although the infant food industry has advanced in the last years, there is no consensus on whether novel bioactive ingredients added to infant formulas have the same functional effects as the compounds found in human milk. Thus, further studies about the impact of bioactive compounds in infant nutrition are fundamental to infant health.

SUBMITTER: Almeida CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8140835 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo review available health and nutrition claims for infant formula products in multiple countries and to evaluate the validity of the evidence used for substantiation of claims.DesignInternational cross sectional survey.SettingPublic facing and healthcare professional facing company owned or company managed formula industry websites providing information about products marketed for healthy infants delivered at full term in 15 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2020-22.Main outcome measuresNumber and type of claims made for each product and ingredient. References cited were reviewed and risk of bias was assessed for registered clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and for systematic reviews using the Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews tool.Results757 infant formula products were identified, each with a median of two claims (range from 1 (Australia) to 4 (US)), and 31 types of claims across all products. Of 608 products with ≥1 claims, the most common claim types were "helps/supports development of brain and/or eyes and/or nervous system" (323 (53%) products, 13 ingredients), "strengthens/supports a healthy immune system" (239 (39%) products, 12 ingredients), and "helps/supports growth and development" (224 (37%) products, 20 ingredients). 41 groups of ingredients were associated with ≥1claims, but many claims were made without reference to a specific ingredient (307 (50%) products). The most common groups of ingredients cited in claims were long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (278 (46%) products, 9 different claims); prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics (225 (37%) products, 19 claims); and hydrolysed protein (120 (20%) products, 9 claims). 161/608 (26%) products with ≥1 claims provided a scientific reference to support the claim-266 unique references were cited for 24 different claim types for 161 products. The reference types most frequently cited were clinical trials (50%, 134/266) and reviews (20%, 52/266). 28% (38/134) of referenced clinical trials were registered, 14% (19/134) prospectively. 58 claims referred to 32 registered clinical trials, of which 51 claims (27 trials) related to a randomised comparison. 46 of 51 claims (90%) referenced registered clinical trial outcomes at high risk of bias, and all cited systematic reviews and pooled analyses, carried a high risk of bias.ConclusionsMost infant formula products had at least one health and nutrition claim. Multiple ingredients were claimed to achieve similar health or nutrition effects, multiple claims were made for the same ingredient type, most products did not provide scientific references to support claims, and referenced claims were not supported by robust clinical trial evidence.

Project description:Previous reviews (2005 to 2009) on preterm infants given probiotics or prebiotics with breast milk or mixed feeds focused on prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, sepsis and diarrhea. This review assessed if probiotics, prebiotics led to improved growth and clinical outcomes in formula fed preterm infants.Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared preterm formula containing probiotic(s) or prebiotic(s) to conventional preterm formula in preterm infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and a chi² test. An I² test assessed inconsistencies across studies. I²> 50% represented substantial heterogeneity.Four probiotics studies (N=212), 4 prebiotics studies (N=126) were included. Probiotics: There were no significant differences in weight gain (MD 1.96, 95% CI: -2.64 to 6.56, 2 studies, n=34) or in maximal enteral feed (MD 35.20, 95% CI: -7.61 to 78.02, 2 studies, n=34), number of stools per day increased significantly in probiotic group (MD 1.60, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.00, 1 study, n=20). Prebiotics: Galacto-oligosaccharide/Fructo-oligosaccharide (GOS/FOS) yielded no significant difference in weight gain (MD 0.04, 95% CI: -2.65 to 2.73, 2 studies, n=50), GOS/FOS yielded no significant differences in length gain (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04, 2 studies, n=50). There were no significant differences in head growth (MD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.00, 2 studies, n=76) or age at full enteral feed (MD -0.79, 95% CI: -2.20 to 0.61, 2 studies, n=86). Stool frequency increased significantly in prebiotic group (MD 0.80, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.1, 2 studies, n=86). GOS/FOS and FOS yielded higher bifidobacteria counts in prebiotics group (MD 2.10, 95% CI: 0.96 to 3.24, n=27) and (MD 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.68, n=56).There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation with probiotics or prebiotics results in improved growth and clinical outcomes in exclusively formula fed preterm infants.

Dataset Information

Bioactive Compounds in Infant Formula and Their Effects on Infant Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Literature Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets