-
1.
Milk Fat Globule Membrane Supplementation in Children: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
Ambrożej, D, Dumycz, K, Dziechciarz, P, Ruszczyński, M
Nutrients. 2021;(3)
Abstract
(1) Background: Milk fat globule membrane (MFGM), composing fat droplets responsible for lipid transport in breast milk, has been shown to possess immunological and antimicrobial effects. Standard formulas (SF) are devoid of MFGMs during the production process. The study's aim was to evaluate the safety and benefits of MFGMs supplementation in children. (2) Methods: We searched four databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating the supplementation of MFGMs in children. Growth parameters were chosen as the primary outcome. (3) Results: Twenty-four publications of seventeen studies were included. Meta-analyses assessing the primary outcomes at the age of 4 months included four studies (814 children) comparing the MFGM-supplemented formulas and SF, and two trials (549 children) comparing the MFGM-supplemented formulas and breastfeeding. The primary outcomes were non-inferior in all the experimental MFGM formulas compared to SF, or even represented more similar results to breastfed infants. The promising effects, including a lower incidence of acute otitis media and improved cognitive development, cannot be firmly confirmed due to the small amount of existing evidence. No significant adverse effects were reported in any of the assessed products. (4) Conclusions: The available data signaled beneficial effects and a good safety profile, requiring future research with well-designed trials.
-
2.
Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed low birth weight infants.
Fenton, TR, Al-Wassia, H, Premji, SS, Sauve, RS
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(6):CD003959
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ideal quantity of dietary protein for formula-fed low birth weight infants is still a matter of debate. Protein intake must be sufficient to achieve normal growth without leading to negative effects such as acidosis, uremia, and elevated levels of circulating amino acids. OBJECTIVES To determine whether higher (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d) versus lower (< 3.0 g/kg/d) protein intake during the initial hospital stay of formula-fed preterm infants or low birth weight infants (< 2.5 kilograms) results in improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without evidence of short- or long-term morbidity. Specific objectives were to examine the following comparisons of interventions and to conduct subgroup analyses if possible. 1. Low protein intake if the amount was less than 3.0 g/kg/d. 2. High protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 3.0 g/kg/d but less than 4.0 g/kg/d. 3. Very high protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 4.0 g/kg/d. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), in the Cochrane Library (August 2, 2019); OVID MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, and Ovid MEDLINE(R) (to August 2, 2019); MEDLINE via PubMed (to August 2, 2019) for the previous year; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to August 2, 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs contrasting levels of formula protein intake as low (< 3.0 g/kg/d), high (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d), or very high (≥ 4.0 g/kg/d) in formula-fed hospitalized neonates weighing less than 2.5 kilograms. We excluded studies if infants received partial parenteral nutrition during the study period, or if infants were fed formula as a supplement to human milk. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS We identified six eligible trials that enrolled 218 infants through searches updated to August 2, 2019. Five studies compared low (< 3 g/kg/d) versus high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) protein intake using formulas that kept other nutrients constant. The trials were small (n = 139), and almost all had methodological limitations; the most frequent uncertainty was about attrition. Low-certainty evidence suggests improved weight gain (mean difference [MD] 2.36 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31 to 3.40) and higher nitrogen accretion in infants receiving formula with higher protein content (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus lower protein content (< 3 g/kg/d), while other nutrients were kept constant. No significant differences were seen in rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, or diarrhea. We are uncertain whether high versus low protein intake affects head growth (MD 0.37 cm/week, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58; n = 18) and length gain (MD 0.16 cm/week, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.34; n = 48), but sample sizes were small for these comparisons. One study compared high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus very high (≥ 4 g/kg/d) protein intake (average intakes were 3.6 and 4.1 g/kg/d) during and after an initial hospital stay (n = 77). Moderate-certainty evidence shows no significant differences in weight gain or length gain to discharge, term, and 12 weeks corrected age from very high protein intake (4.1 versus 3.6 g/kg/d). Three of the 24 infants receiving very high protein intake developed uremia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Higher protein intake (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula accelerates weight gain. However, limited information is available regarding the impact of higher formula protein intake on long-term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Research is needed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of protein intake ≥ 4.0 g/kg/d.
-
3.
Effect of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in infant formula on long-term cognitive function in childhood: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Verfuerden, ML, Dib, S, Jerrim, J, Fewtrell, M, Gilbert, RE
PloS one. 2020;(11):e0241800
Abstract
PROSPERO registration numbers CRD42018105196 and CRD42018088868.
-
4.
Comparison of different protein concentrations of human milk fortifier for promoting growth and neurological development in preterm infants.
Gao, C, Miller, J, Collins, CT, Rumbold, AR
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(11):CD007090
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human milk alone may provide inadequate amounts of protein to meet the growth requirements of preterm infants because of restrictions in the amount of fluid they can tolerate. It has become common practice to feed preterm infants with breast milk fortified with protein and other nutrients but there is debate about the optimal concentration of protein in commercially available fortifiers. OBJECTIVES To compare the effects of different protein concentrations in human milk fortifier, fed to preterm infants, on growth and neurodevelopment. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL on 15 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all published and unpublished randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing two different concentrations of protein in human milk fortifier. We included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestational age). Participants may have been exclusively fed human milk or have been supplemented with formula. The concentration of protein was classified as low (< 1g protein/100 mL expressed breast milk (EBM)), moderate (≥ 1g to < 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM) or high (≥ 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM). We excluded trials that compared two protein concentrations that fell within the same category. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We undertook data collection and analyses using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently evaluated trials. Primary outcomes included growth, neurodevelopmental outcome and mortality. Data were synthesised using risk ratios (RR), risk differences and mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We identified nine trials involving 861 infants. There is one trial awaiting classification, and nine ongoing trials. The trials were mostly conducted in infants born < 32 weeks' gestational age or < 1500 g birthweight, or both. All used a fortifier derived from bovine milk. Two trials fed infants exclusively with mother's own milk, three trials gave supplementary feeds with donor human milk and four trials supplemented with preterm infant formula. Overall, trials were small but generally at low or unclear risk of bias. High versus moderate protein concentration of human milk fortifier There was moderate certainty evidence that a high protein concentration likely increased in-hospital weight gain compared to moderate concentration of human milk fortifier (MD 0.66 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82; trials = 6, participants = 606). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of high versus moderate protein concentration on length gain (MD 0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; trials = 5, participants = 547; very low certainty evidence) and head circumference gain (MD 0.00 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; trials = 5, participants = 549; very low certainty evidence). Only one trial reported neonatal mortality, with no deaths in either group (participants = 45). Moderate versus low protein concentration of human milk fortifier A moderate versus low protein concentration fortifier may increase weight gain (MD 2.08 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.77; trials = 2, participants = 176; very low certainty evidence) with little to no effect on head circumference gain (MD 0.13 cm/week, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26; I² = 85%; trials = 3, participants = 217; very low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There was low certainty evidence that a moderate protein concentration may increase length gain (MD 0.09 cm/week, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; trials = 3, participants = 217). Only one trial reported mortality and found no difference between groups (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.17; participants = 112). No trials reported long term growth or neurodevelopmental outcomes including cerebral palsy and developmental delay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Feeding preterm infants with a human milk fortifier containing high amounts of protein (≥ 1.4g/100 mL EBM) compared with a fortifier containing moderate protein concentration (≥ 1 g to < 1.4 g/100 mL EBM) results in small increases in weight gain during the neonatal admission. There may also be small increases in weight and length gain when infants are fed a fortifier containing moderate versus low protein concentration (< 1 g protein/100 mL EBM). The certainty of this evidence is very low to moderate; therefore, results may change when the findings of ongoing studies are available. There is insufficient evidence to assess the impact of protein concentration on adverse effects or long term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Further trials are needed to determine whether modest increases in weight gain observed with higher protein concentration fortifiers are associated with benefits or harms to long term growth and neurodevelopment.
-
5.
Effects of dietary nucleotide supplementation on growth in infants: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Wang, L, Mu, S, Xu, X, Shi, Z, Shen, L
European journal of nutrition. 2019;(3):1213-1221
Abstract
PURPOSE Dietary nucleotides are thought to be conditionally essential nutrients in infancy. However, studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the association between nucleotide supplementation and infant physical growth. We conducted this meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of nucleotide supplementation of infant formula in promoting early infant growth. METHODS Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the association between nucleotide supplementation and infant growth through June 2017 were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q and I2 tests. RESULTS Nucleotide supplementation significantly increased the rate of weight gain (SMD 0.26; 95% CI 0.06-0.47), but had no effect on weight (SMD - 0.16; 95% CI - 0.55-0.23), weight Z score (SMD, - 0.42; 95% CI - 1.64-0.81), length (SMD 0.01; 95% CI - 0.18-0.21) and length Z score (SMD 0.15; 95% CI - 0.10-0.40). Occipitofrontal head circumference (OFC) at 7-8 weeks (SMD 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.50) and the rate of OFC gain (SMD 0.34; 95% CI 0.09-0.58) were significantly improved with nucleotide supplementation, whereas, 16- and 20-week OFC values did not differ. CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analysis indicated that nucleotide supplementation can increase the rate of weight gain, OFC and rate of OFC gain; however, we cannot conclude that it affects weight, weight Z score, length or length Z score. Large-scale randomized controlled trials of long-term nucleotide supplementation are needed to reach definitive conclusions.
-
6.
Is Donated Breast Milk Better Than Formula for Feeding Very Low Birth Weight Infants? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Yu, F, Cao, B, Wen, Z, Li, M, Chen, H, Xie, G
Worldviews on evidence-based nursing. 2019;(6):485-494
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of donated breast milk and formula feeding in very low birth weight infants (VLBWIs) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE The objective for this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of breast milk and formula for feeding VLBWIs. METHODS A comprehensive search of PubMed databases was conducted on November 30, 2018, to identify related randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pooled odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using either a fixed or random-effects model. RESULTS Seven RCTs with a total of 876 infants were included. The formula showed more advantages in increasing infant weight (MD = -6.58, 95% CI: -11.19 to -1.98) and length (MD = -0.30, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.20) than donated breast milk, but formula could also significantly increase the risks of necrotizing enterocolitis (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.59) and length of hospital stay (MD = -3.78, 95% CI: -6.84 to -0.72) when compared with donated breast milk. No significant differences on the head circumference gain (MD = -0.16, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.01), sepsis (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.75), retinopathy of prematurity (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.73 to 2.05) and mortality (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.52) were found. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION The donated breast milk shows more advantages in reducing the incidence of NEC and length of hospital stay, but also more disadvantages in increasing the weight and length of VLBWIs and ELBWIs when compared with preterm formula feeding. Currently, there is no solid evidence demonstrating a significant advantage of donated breast milk over formula in the feeding of VLBWIs. Larger-scale RCTs with rigorous designs are needed to elucidate the feeding plans of VLBWIs.
-
7.
Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term.
Jasani, B, Simmer, K, Patole, SK, Rao, SC
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017;(3):CD000376
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA) are considered essential for maturation of the developing brain, retina and other organs in newborn infants. Standard infant milk formulae are not supplemented with LCPUFA; they contain only alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid, from which formula-fed infants must synthesise their own DHA and AA, respectively. Over the past few years, some manufacturers have added LCPUFA to formula milk and have marketed these products as providing an advantage for the overall development of full-term infants. OBJECTIVES To assess whether supplementation of formula milk with LCPUFA is both safe and beneficial for full-term infants, while focusing on effects on visual function, neurodevelopment and physical growth. SEARCH METHODS Two review authors independently searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; December 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to December 2016), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to December 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1980 to December 2016) and abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies (2000 to 2016). We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We reviewed all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating effects of LCPUFA supplemented versus non-supplemented formula milk on visual function, neurodevelopment and physical growth. We did not include trials reporting only biochemical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors extracted data independently. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the guidelines of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. When appropriate, we conducted meta-analysis to determine a pooled estimate of effect. MAIN RESULTS We identified 31 RCTs and included 15 of these in the review (N = 1889).Nine studies assessed visual acuity, six of which used visual evoked potentials (VEP), two Teller cards and one both. Four studies reported beneficial effects, and the remaining five did not. Meta-analysis of three RCTs showed significant benefit for sweep VEP acuity at 12 months (log of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR)) (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.13; I2 = 0; three trials; N = 244), but meta-analysis of three other RCTs showed no benefit for visual acuity measured with Teller cards at 12 months (cycles/degree) (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11; I2 = 0; three trials; N = 256). GRADE analysis for the outcome of visual acuity indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low.Eleven studies measured neurodevelopmental outcomes at or before two years. Nine studies used Bayley Scales of Infant Development, version II (BSID-II), and only two of these studies reported beneficial effects. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between LCPUFA and placebo groups in BSID Mental Developmental Index (MDI) scores at 18 months (MD 0.06, 95% CI -2.01 to 2.14; I2 = 75%; four trials; N = 661) and no significant differences in BSID Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) scores at 18 months (MD 0.69, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.16; I2 = 61%; four trials; N = 661). Results showed no significant differences between the two groups in BSID-II scores at one year and two years of age. One study reported better novelty preference measured by the Fagan Infant Test at nine months. Another study reported better problem solving at 10 months. One study used the Brunet and Lezine test to assess the developmental quotient and found no beneficial effects. Follow-up of some infants in different studies at three, six and nine years of age revealed no beneficial effects of supplementation. GRADE analysis of these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low.Thirteen studies measured physical growth; none found beneficial or harmful effects of supplementation. Meta-analysis of five RCTs showed that the supplemented group had lower weight (z scores) at one year of age (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.06; I2 = 83%; N = 521) and that the two groups showed no significant differences with respect to length and head circumference (z scores). Meta-analysis at 18 months and at two years revealed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to weight (kg), length (cm) and head circumference (cm). GRADE analysis of these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Most of the included RCTs reported no beneficial effects or harms of LCPUFA supplementation on neurodevelopmental outcomes of formula-fed full-term infants and no consistent beneficial effects on visual acuity. Routine supplementation of full-term infant milk formula with LCPUFA cannot be recommended at this time.
-
8.
Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in preterm infants.
Moon, K, Rao, SC, Schulzke, SM, Patole, SK, Simmer, K
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;(12):CD000375
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Controversy exists over whether longchain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) are essential nutrients for preterm infants because they may not be able to synthesise sufficient amounts of LCPUFA to meet the needs of the developing brain and retina. OBJECTIVES To assess whether supplementation of formula milk with LCPUFA is safe and of benefit to preterm infants. The main areas of interest were the effects of supplementation on the visual function, development and growth of preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library (searched 28 February 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1966 to 28 February 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 28 February 2016), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1980 to 28 February 2016), MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-indexed Citations (1966 to 28 February 2016) and by checking reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (13 April 2016). No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised trials evaluating the effect of LCPUFA-supplemented formula in enterally-fed preterm infants (compared with standard formula) on visual development, neurodevelopment and physical growth. Trials reporting only biochemical outcomes were not included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS All authors assessed eligibility and trial quality, two authors extracted data separately. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS Seventeen trials involving 2260 preterm infants were included in the review. The risk of bias varied across the included trials with 10 studies having low risk of bias in a majority of the domains. The median gestational age (GA) in the included trials was 30 weeks and median birth weight (BW) was 1300 g. The median concentration of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) was 0.33% (range: 0.15% to 1%) and arachidonic acid (AA) 0.37% (range: 0.02% to 0.84%). Visual acuity Visual acuity over the first year was measured by Teller or Lea acuity cards in eight studies, by visual evoked potential (VEP) in six studies and by electroretinogram (ERG) in two studies. Most studies found no significant differences in visual acuity between supplemented and control infants. The form of data presentation and the varying assessment methods precluded the use of meta-analysis. A GRADE analysis for this outcome indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. Neurodevelopment Three out of seven studies reported some benefit of LCPUFA on neurodevelopment at different postnatal ages. Meta-analysis of four studies evaluating Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 12 months (N = 364) showed no significant effect of supplementation (Mental Development Index (MDI): MD 0.96, 95% CI -1.42 to 3.34; P = 0.43; I² = 71% - Psychomotor DeveIopment Index (PDI): MD 0.23, 95% CI -2.77 to 3.22; P = 0.88; I² = 81%). Furthermore, three studies at 18 months (N = 494) also revealed no significant effect of LCPUFA on neurodevelopment (MDI: MD 2.40, 95% CI -0.33 to 5.12; P = 0.08; I² = 0% - PDI: MD 0.74, 95% CI -1.90 to 3.37; P = 0.58; I² = 54%). A GRADE analysis for these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. Physical growth Four out of 15 studies reported benefits of LCPUFA on growth of supplemented infants at different postmenstrual ages (PMAs), whereas two trials suggested that LCPUFA-supplemented infants grow less well. One trial reported mild reductions in length and weight z scores at 18 months. Meta-analysis of five studies (N = 297) showed increased weight and length at two months post-term in supplemented infants (Weight: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.33; P = 0.0010; I² = 69% - Length: MD 0.47, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94; P = 0.05; I² = 0%). Meta-analysis of four studies at a corrected age of 12 months (N = 271) showed no significant effect of supplementation on growth outcomes (Weight: MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.12; P = 0.34; I² = 65% - Length: MD 0.25; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.84; P = 0.40; I² = 71% - Head circumference: MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.23; P = 0.45; I² = 0%). No significant effect of LCPUFA on weight, length or head circumference was observed on meta-analysis of two studies (n = 396 infants) at 18 months (Weight: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.10; P = 0.26; I² = 66% - Length: MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.35; P = 0.38; I² = 90% - Head circumference: MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.18; P = 0.32; I² = 0%). A GRADE analysis for this outcome indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Infants enrolled in the trials were relatively mature and healthy preterm infants. Assessment schedule and methodology, dose and source of supplementation and fatty acid composition of the control formula varied between trials. On pooling of results, no clear long-term benefits or harms were demonstrated for preterm infants receiving LCPUFA-supplemented formula.
-
9.
Hydrolysed formula and risk of allergic or autoimmune disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Boyle, RJ, Ierodiakonou, D, Khan, T, Chivinge, J, Robinson, Z, Geoghegan, N, Jarrold, K, Afxentiou, T, Reeves, T, Cunha, S, et al
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2016;:i974
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether feeding infants with hydrolysed formula reduces their risk of allergic or autoimmune disease. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis, as part of a series of systematic reviews commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency to inform guidelines on infant feeding. Two authors selected studies by consensus, independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and LILACS searched between January 1946 and April 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Prospective intervention trials of hydrolysed cows' milk formula compared with another hydrolysed formula, human breast milk, or a standard cows' milk formula, which reported on allergic or autoimmune disease or allergic sensitisation. RESULTS 37 eligible intervention trials of hydrolysed formula were identified, including over 19,000 participants. There was evidence of conflict of interest and high or unclear risk of bias in most studies of allergic outcomes and evidence of publication bias for studies of eczema and wheeze. Overall there was no consistent evidence that partially or extensively hydrolysed formulas reduce risk of allergic or autoimmune outcomes in infants at high pre-existing risk of these outcomes. Odds ratios for eczema at age 0-4, compared with standard cows' milk formula, were 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.07; I(2)=30%) for partially hydrolysed formula; 0.55 (0.28 to 1.09; I(2)=74%) for extensively hydrolysed casein based formula; and 1.12 (0.88 to 1.42; I(2)=0%) for extensively hydrolysed whey based formula. There was no evidence to support the health claim approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that a partially hydrolysed formula could reduce the risk of eczema nor the conclusion of the Cochrane review that hydrolysed formula could allergy to cows' milk. CONCLUSION These findings do not support current guidelines that recommend the use of hydrolysed formula to prevent allergic disease in high risk infants. REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42013004252.
-
10.
Safety of soya-based infant formulas in children.
Vandenplas, Y, Castrellon, PG, Rivas, R, Gutiérrez, CJ, Garcia, LD, Jimenez, JE, Anzo, A, Hegar, B, Alarcon, P
The British journal of nutrition. 2014;(8):1340-60
Abstract
Soya-based infant formulas (SIF) containing soya flour were introduced almost 100 years ago. Modern soya formulas are used in allergy/intolerance to cows' milk-based formulas (CMF), post-infectious diarrhoea, lactose intolerance and galactosaemia, as a vegan human milk (HM) substitute, etc. The safety of SIF is still debated. In the present study, we reviewed the safety of SIF in relation to anthropometric growth, bone health (bone mineral content), immunity, cognition, and reproductive and endocrine functions. The present review includes cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies or clinical trials that were carried out in children fed SIF compared with those fed other types of infant formulas and that measured safety. The databases that were searched included PubMed (1909 to July 2013), Embase (1988 to May 2013), LILACS (1990 to May 2011), ARTEMISA (13th edition, December 2012), Cochrane controlled trials register, Bandolier and DARE using the Cochrane methodology. Wherever possible, a meta-analysis was carried out. We found that the anthropometric patterns of children fed SIF were similar to those of children fed CMF or HM. Despite the high levels of phytates and aluminium in SIF, Hb, serum protein, Zn and Ca concentrations and bone mineral content were found to be similar to those of children fed CMF or HM. We also found the levels of genistein and daidzein to be higher in children fed SIF; however, we did not find strong evidence of a negative effect on reproductive and endocrine functions. Immune measurements and neurocognitive parameters were similar in all the feeding groups. In conclusion, modern SIF are evidence-based safety options to feed children requiring them. The patterns of growth, bone health and metabolic, reproductive, endocrine, immune and neurological functions are similar to those observed in children fed CMF or HM.