Feeding infants formula with probiotics or milk fat globule membrane-enriched whey protein concentrate
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJEB38295 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERR4142810.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| ERR4142820.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| ERR4142830.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| ERR4142840.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| ERR4142850.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 651 |
Similar Datasets
Project description:Purpose: To evaluate effects on growth and infection rates of supplementing infant formula with the probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei ssp. paracasei strain F19 (F19) or bovine milk fat globule membrane (MFGM). Methods: In a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 600 infants were randomized to a formula supplemented with F19 or MFGM, or to standard formula (SF). A breastfed group was recruited as reference (n = 200).The intervention lasted from age 21 ± 7 days until 4 months, and infants were followed until age one year. Results: Both experimental formulas were well tolerated and resulted in high compliance. The few reported adverse events were not likely related to formula, with the highest rates in the SF group, significantly higher than for the F19-supplemented infants (p = 0.046). Weight or length gain did not differ during or after the intervention among the formula-fed groups, with satisfactory growth. During the intervention, overall, the experimental formula groups did not have more episodes of diarrhea, fever, or days with fever than the breastfed infants. However, compared to the breastfed infants, the SF group had more fever episodes (p = 0.021) and days with fever (p = 0.036), but not diarrhea. Compared with the breastfed group, the F19-supplemented infants but not the other two formula groups had more visits/unscheduled hospitalizations (p = 0.015) and borderline more episodes of upper respiratory tract infections (p = 0.048). Conclusions: Both the MFGM- and F19-supplemented formulas were safe and well-tolerated, leading to few adverse effects, similar to the breastfed group and unlike the SF group. During the intervention, the MFGM-supplemented infants did not differ from the breastfed infants in any primary outcome.
| S-EPMC6736587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The majority of babies in the US are formula-fed instead of breast fed. There are major differences in the composition of formulas and breast milk and yet little is known about metabolic differences in babies as the result of feeding these very different diets and how that might affect development or disease risk in later life. One concern is that soy-based formulas might have adverse health effects in babies as a result of the presence of low levels of estrogenic phytochemicals – genistein and daidzein which are normally present in soy beans. In the current study, we used a piglet model to look at this question. Piglets were either fed breast milk from the sow or were fed two different infant formulas (cow’s milk-based or soy-based) from age 2 days to 21 days when pigs are normally weaned onto solid food. Blood glucose and lipids were measured. Formula-fed pigs were found to have lower cholesterol than breast fed piglets and in addition had larger stores of iron in their liver.Microarray analysis was carried out to see if changes in liver gene expression could explain these effects of formula feeding. It was found that overall gene expression profiles were influenced by formula feeding compared to breast fed neonates. Gender-independent and unique effects of formula influenced cholesterol and iron metabolism. Further, soy formula feeding in comparison to milk-based formula failed to reveal any estrogenic actions on hepatic gene expression in either male or female pigs.
2012-01-05 | GSE28349 | GEO
Project description:There is little information regarding the allergen content of milk feeds in the preterm population. Previous studies have evaluated specific proteins/peptides via ELISA, but no studies have performed a broad analysis of the allergenic peptide content and protease activity of milk feeds in this population. Preterm infants spend a critical window of time for immune development in the Newborn Intensive Care Unit (NICU), and may receive fortified donor milk, maternal milk or formula feeds via nasogastric tube or bottle instead of fresh breastmilk via breastfeeding.
2024-01-26 | PXD033473 | Pride
Project description:Gut Microbiota of Infants fed different formula types versus breastmilk Raw sequence reads
| PRJNA589488 | ENA
Project description:(1) Background: While goat milk formula (GMF) is an alternative to cow milk formula (CMF), infants' preferences for one over the other have not been formally assessed. Specifically, our aim in this study was to determine whether infants experience fewer feeding behavior problems with whole milk-based GMF than with conventional whey-based CMF. (2) Methods: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with two-arm parallel assignment conducted in six pediatricians' offices in or near Paris, France, between June 2018 and 31 December 2021. Overall, 64 healthy infants (≤4 months old), predominantly formula-fed, were randomly assigned to either the whole milk-based GMF (n = 33) or whey-based CMF (n = 31) arm. Parents completed the Baby Eating Behavior Questionnaire (BEBQ) and the modified QUALIN questionnaire to evaluate infant feeding behavior and quality of life (psychomotor and socioemotional development), respectively, at inclusion (1 to 5 days before milk delivery) and the final visit (day 28 ± 3 after milk delivery). Informed consent was obtained for all recruited patients, and an ethical committee approved the study. (3) Results: Changes in BEBQ Enjoyment of Food and Slowness in Eating subscale scores from inclusion to final visit did not differ between arms. However, there were significant improvements in subscale scores for Food Responsiveness (GMF: 0.15 ± 1; CMF: -0.48 ± 0.81; p = 0.010) and General Appetite (GMF: 0.26 ± 1.2; CMF: -0.48 ± 0.88; p = 0.012), and modified QUALIN (GMF: 4.6 ± 9.4; CMF: -0.40 ± 7.6; p = 0.03) scores in favor of the GMF group. (4) Conclusions: In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, GMF-fed infants exhibited a greater general appetite than CMF-fed infants, possibly due to differences in the composition of these formulas (i.e., protein and lipid profiles). In addition, GMF-fed infants enjoyed a better quality of life. There was no difference in food enjoyment between groups. These findings suggest that whole-milk-based GMF could be an attractive alternative to whey-based CMF. Clinical trial registration: NCT03488758 (clinicaltrials.gov).
| S-EPMC10537215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Major risk factors for necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) are formula feeding and prematurity, however, their pathogenic mechanisms are unknown. We found that insufficient arginine/nitric oxide synthesis limits blood flow in the intestinal microvasculature, leading to hypoxia, mucosa damage and NEC in the premature intestine after formula feeding. Formula feeding led to increased intestinal hypoxia in pups at postnatal day 1(P1) and P5, but not in more mature pups at P9. Accordingly, blood flow in the intestinal microvasculature increased after formula feeding only in P9 pups. mRNA profiling revealed that regulators of arginine/nitric oxide synthesis are at higher levels in endothelial cells of the intestine of P9 than P1 pups. Importantly, arginine supplementation increased intestinal microvasculature blood flow, and prevented NEC, whereas an arginine antagonist exacerbated NEC. Our results suggest that balancing intestinal oxygen demand and supply in the premature intestine by modulating arginine/nitric oxide could be used to prevent NEC.
2019-11-05 | GSE138671 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundWhen sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.Search methodsWe used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (until 8 June 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.Selection criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.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 (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) 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 subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods.Main resultsEleven trials, in which 1809 infants participated in total, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and seven compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the four most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.06).The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).Authors' conclusionsIn preterm and LBW infants, feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.
| S-EPMC6513381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.Search methodsWe used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (3 May 2019), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials.Selection criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.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 (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) 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 subgroup analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods.Main resultsTwelve trials with a total of 1879 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and eight compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the five most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Most of the included trials were funded by companies that made the study formula.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). These meta-analyses contained high levels of heterogeneity. We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 9 studies, 1675 infants).The GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).Authors' conclusionsIn preterm and LBW infants, moderate-certainty evidence indicates that feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.
| S-EPMC6640412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The majority of babies in the US are formula-fed instead of breast fed. There are major differences in the composition of formulas and breast milk and yet little is known about metabolic differences in babies as the result of feeding these very different diets and how that might affect development or disease risk in later life. One concern is that soy-based formulas might have adverse health effects in babies as a result of the presence of low levels of estrogenic phytochemicals genistein and daidzein which are normally present in soy beans. In the current study, we used a piglet model to look at this question. Piglets were either fed breast milk from the sow or were fed two different infant formulas (cow's milk-based or soy-based) from age 2 days to 21 days when pigs are normally weaned onto solid food. Blood glucose and lipids were measured. Formula-fed pigs were found to have lower cholesterol than breast fed piglets and in addition had larger stores of iron in their liver.Microarray analysis was carried out to see if changes in liver gene expression could explain these effects of formula feeding. It was found that overall gene expression profiles were influenced by formula feeding compared to breast fed neonates. Gender-independent and unique effects of formula influenced cholesterol and iron metabolism. Further, soy formula feeding in comparison to milk-based formula failed to reveal any estrogenic actions on hepatic gene expression in either male or female pigs. Piglets (female, male) were either fed breast milk from the sow or were fed two different infant formulas (cow's milk-based or soy-based) from age 2 days to 21 days when pigs are normally weaned onto solid food.
2012-01-05 | E-GEOD-28349 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) is an inflammation causing injury to the bowel in newborns. This project uses a rodent model that mimics the intestinal pathological changes seen in NEC to study the effect of formula feeding and hypoxia on NEC development Keywords: time series, diet, hypoxia
2003-07-16 | GSE491 | GEO