Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease and food allergy

The Risk Reduction Effect of a Nutritional Intervention With a Partially Hydrolyzed Whey-Based Formula on Cow's Milk Protein Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis in High-Risk Infants Within the First 6 Months of Life: The Allergy Reduction Trial (A.R.T.), a Multicenter Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study

Background

The role of partially hydrolyzed formulas (pHF) as part of nutritional interventions to prevent the development of allergic manifestations (AM) is questioned, and efficacy of each specific pHF should be substantiated.

Objective

To investigate the risk-reduction effect of a whey-based pHF on the development of cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) and atopic dermatitis (AD) in infants at high-risk for allergy within the first 6 months of life.

Materials and Methods

In a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled setting, healthy non-exclusively breastfed full-term infants, received either a specific whey-based pHF or a standard cow's milk-based formula (SF) and were clinically assessed for AM at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, supported by the objective scoring tools SCORAD and CoMiSS. CMPA was confirmed by open food challenge. Intention-to-Treat (ITT) and Per-Protocol (PP) analyses were performed.

Results

Of 331 randomized subjects (ITT analysis set), 160 received the pHF and 171 the SF. Six (3.8%) infants in the pHF and 12 (7%) in the SF group developed CMPA (p = 0.186). AD incidence was significantly lower in those receiving pHF as compared to SF (10.6% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.024) with a relative risk (RR, 95% CI) of 0.54 (0.32, 0.92), in particular when adjusting for family history of AD [6.5% vs. 27.3%, RR 0.24 (0.07, 0.78), p = 0.018] representing a risk reduction of 76%. The PP analysis showed similar results.

Conclusion

This specific whey-based pHF reduced the risk of AD development, particularly in those with a family history of AD, and tended to reduce the development of CMPA in non-exclusively breastfed infants at high-risk for allergy. The A.R.T. study suggests that this particular pHF may contribute to measures aimed at prevention of allergic manifestations. However, further studies are needed to confirm this risk-reduction effect.

Effect of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy on infantile food allergy: A retrospective longitudinal study cohort in Southwest China

INTRODUCTION

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy has been consistently associated with a higher incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Previous studies mainly focused on the effects of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy on pregnant mothers and fetuses, and few studies reported the postpartum growth and development of fetuses in pregnant women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. The aim of this study was to investigate impact of maternal serum total bile acid levels on maternal and neonatal outcomes as well as child growth and food allergy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective longitudinal cohort investigation was carried out among 751 pregnant women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy at 30-32 weeks of gestation from the Longitudinal Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy Study (LoICPS). Data on the characteristics of the mothers and neonates were collected. Infant growth data and food sensitivities were also collected.

RESULTS

In our cohort, the average maternal serum total bile acid level was 35.09±30.02 μmol/L, with 58.8% of mothers suffering from mild intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and 29.2% suffering from severe intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Positive correlations were found between maternal serum total bile acid levels and twin pregnancy (beta-value: 11.55, 95% CI: 2.89 - 20.20. P = 0.009) and meconium stained amniotic fluid (beta-value: 14.64, 95% CI: 9.41 - 19.87. P < 0.001). In addition, the infants of mothers with severe intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy were more likely to be allergic to foods at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that despite pregnant women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy taking ursodeoxycholic acid tablets and cesarean section before expected date of childbirth, the perinatal outcome of newborns partially improving, the incidence of infantile food allergy was still increased.

Introduction of Heated Cow's Milk Protein in Challenge-Proven Cow's Milk Allergic Children: The iAGE Study

The introduction of baked milk products in cow’s milk (CM) allergic children has previously been shown to accelerate induction tolerance in a selected group of children. However, there is no standardized baked milk product on the market. Recently, a new standardized, heated and glycated cow’s milk protein (HP) product was developed. The aim of this study was to measure safety and tolerability of a new, well characterized heated CM protein (HP) product in cow’s milk allergic (CMA) children between the age of 3 and 36 months. The children were recruited from seven clinics throughout The Netherlands. The HP product was introduced in six incremental doses under clinical supervision. Symptoms were registered after introduction of the HP product. Several questionnaires were filled out by parents of the children. Skin prick tests were performed with CM and HP product, sIgE to CM and α-lactalbumin (Bos d4), β-lactoglobulin (Bos d5), serum albumin (Bos d 6), lactoferrin (Bos d7) and casein (Bos d8). Whereas 72% percent (18 out of 25) of the children tolerated the HP product, seven children experienced adverse events. Risk factors for intolerance to the HP product were higher skin prick test (SPT) histamine equivalent index (HEP) results with CM and the HP product, higher specific IgE levels against Bos d4 and Bos d8 levels and Bos d5 levels. In conclusion, the HP product was tolerated by 72% of the CM allergic children. Outcomes of SPT with CM and the HP product, as well as values of sIgE against caseins, α-lactalbumin, and β-lactoglobulin may predict the tolerability of the HP product. Larger studies are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Consensus statement on the epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of cow's milk protein allergy in the Middle East: a modified Delphi-based study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop an expert consensus regarding the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) in the Middle East.

METHODS

A three-step modified Delphi method was utilized to develop the consensus. Fifteen specialized pediatricians participated in the development of this consensus. Each statement was considered a consensus if it achieved an agreement level of ≥ 80%.

RESULTS

The experts agreed that the double-blind placebo-controlled oral challenge test (OCT) should be performed for 2-4 weeks using an amino acid formula (AAF) in formula-fed infants or children with suspected CMPA. Formula-fed infants with confirmed CMPA should be offered a therapeutic formula. The panel stated that an extensively hydrolyzed formula (eHF) is indicated in the absence of red flag signs. At the same time, the AAF is offered for infants with red flag signs, such as severe anaphylactic reactions. The panel agreed that infants on an eHF with resolved symptoms within 2-4 weeks should continue the eHF with particular attention to the growth and nutritional status. On the other hand, an AAF should be considered for infants with persistent symptoms; the AAF should be continued if the symptoms resolve within 2-4 weeks, with particular attention to the growth and nutritional status. In cases with no symptomatic improvements after the introduction of an AAF, other measures should be followed. The panel developed a management algorithm, which achieved an agreement level of 90.9%.

CONCLUSION

This consensus document combined the best available evidence and clinical experience to optimize the management of CMPA in the Middle East.

Preventing Atopic Diseases During Childhood - Early Exposure Matters

Atopic diseases in childhood are a major burden worldwide and there is still a lack of knowledge about treatable causes. In industrialized countries such as Germany, almost every second child is sensitized to at least one common allergen. Recent studies show that although the predisposition to allergies is inherited, the adaptive immune system of neonates and infants follows a developmental trajectory and whether an allergy actually occurs depends also on timing of allergen exposure including diet as well as environmental factors. New recommendations are far from being rigid of allergen avoidance; it is rather moving toward conditions that stand for more biodiversity. The observation that introduction of peanuts or eggs early in life significantly reduced the development of a later allergy will change our recommendations for the introduction of complementary foods. This is consistent with the hygiene hypothesis that early provocation shapes the developing immune system so that it reacts appropriately. Therefore, promoting the development of tolerance is at the heart of sensible allergy prevention - and this begins with the last trimester of pregnancy. In light of this concept, actual recommendations are discussed.

Protein hydrolysate versus standard formula for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

When 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.

OBJECTIVES

To 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 METHODS

We 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 CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two 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 RESULTS

We 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' CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

A perspective on partially hydrolyzed protein infant formula in nonexclusively breastfed infants

The World Health Organization recommends that infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life to provide optimal nutrition in this critical period of life. After this, infants should receive nutritionally adequate and safe complementary foods while breastfeeding continues for up to 2 years of age or beyond. For nonbreastfed infants, infant formula is an available option to provide the nutrition needed. Infant formula is usually prepared from industrially modified cow’s milk and processed to adjust for the nutritional needs of infants. However, cow’s milk is one of the most common causes of food allergy, affecting 2%–5% of all formula-fed infants during their first year of life. One strategy to prevent cow’s milk allergy in nonbreastfed infants is the use of partially hydrolyzed formula (pHF) in high-risk infants, which are infants born in families with atopic disease. However, based on an epidemiological study, approximately half of the infants who develop allergy are not part of the at-risk group. This is because the non-at-risk group is significantly larger than the at-risk group and the non-at-risk infants have approximately 15% risk of developing allergies. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of partially hydrolyzed whey formula (pHF-W) in nonbreastfed infants and determine whether pHF-W can prevent atopic disease in high-risk infants and can be used as routine starter formula regardless of the allergy risk status.

Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease

BACKGROUND

Infant formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been widely advocated for preventing allergic disease in infants, in place of standard cow's milk formula (CMF). However, it is unclear whether the clinical trial evidence supports this.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergic disease when infants are fed a hydrolysed formula versus CMF or human breast milk. If hydrolysed formulas are effective, to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective, including extensively or partially hydrolysed formula (EHF/PHF). To determine whether infants at low or high risk of allergic disease, and whether infants receiving early short-term (first few days after birth) or prolonged formula feeding benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1948 to 3 November 2017), and Embase (1974 to 3 November 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles and previous reviews for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared use of a hydrolysed formula versus human milk or CMF. Outcomes with ≥ 80% follow-up of participants from eligible trials were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data from the included studies. Fixed-effect analyses were performed. The treatment effects were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals and quality of evidence using the GRADE quality of evidence approach. The primary outcome was all allergic disease (including asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis and food allergy).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days infant supplementation with an EHF while in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. A single study enrolling 90 infants reported no difference in all allergic disease (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.38 to 5.37) or any specific allergic disease up to childhood including cow's milk allergy (CMA) (RR 7.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 143.84). A single study reported no difference in infant CMA (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.46; participants = 3559). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.No eligible trials compared prolonged hydrolysed formula versus human milk feeding.Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days infant supplementation with an EHF versus a CMF. A single study enrolling 90 infants reported no difference in all allergic disease (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.33 to 5.71; participants = 77) or any specific allergic disease including CMA up to childhood. A single study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00; participants = 3473). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.Twelve studies assessed the effect of prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF. The data showed no difference in all allergic disease in infants (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; participants = 2852; studies = 8) and children (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; participants = 950; studies = 2), and no difference in any specific allergic disease including infant asthma (typical RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.04; participants = 318; studies = 4), eczema (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09; participants = 2896; studies = 9), rhinitis (typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.85; participants = 256; studies = 3), food allergy (typical RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.33; participants = 479; studies = 2), and CMA (RR 2.31, 95% CI 0.24 to 21.97; participants = 338; studies = 1). Quality of evidence was assessed as very low for all outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support short-term or prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with exclusive breast feeding for prevention of allergic disease. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA. Further trials are recommended before implementation of this practice.We found no evidence to support prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for prevention of allergic disease in infants unable to be exclusively breast fed.

Protein hydrolysate versus standard formula for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

When 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.

OBJECTIVES

To 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 METHODS

We 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 CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two 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 RESULTS

We 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' CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

Nutrition and Allergic Diseases

The development of IgE-mediated allergic diseases is influenced by many factors, including genetic and environmental factors such as pollution and farming, but also by nutrition. In the last decade, substantial progress has been made in our understanding of the impact that nutrition can have on allergic diseases. Many studies have addressed the effect of breastfeeding, pre-, pro- and synbiotics, vitamins and minerals, fiber, fruit and vegetables, cow's milk, and n-3 fatty acids, on the development of allergies. In addition, nutrition can also have indirect effects on allergic sensitization. This includes the diet of pregnant and breastfeeding women, which influences intrauterine development, as well as breastmilk composition. These include the diet of pregnant and breastfeeding women that influences intrauterine development as well as breastmilk composition, effects of food processing that may enhance allergenicity of foods, and effects via modulation of the intestinal microbiota and their metabolites. This editorial review provides a brief overview of recent developments related to nutrition and the development and management of allergic diseases.

Prevention and Management of Cow's Milk Allergy in Non-Exclusively Breastfed Infants

Introduction: The prevention and management of cow milk allergy (CMA) is still debated. Since CMA is much less frequent in breastfed infants, breastfeeding should be stimulated. Method: Literature was searched using databases to find original papers and reviews on this topic. Results: Hydrolysates with a clinical proof of efficacy are recommended in the prevention and treatment of CMA. However, not all meta-analyses conclude that hydrolysates do prevent CMA or other atopic manifestations such as atopic dermatitis. There are pros and cons to consider partially hydrolysed protein as an option for starter infant formula for each non-exclusively breastfed infant. A challenge test is still recommended as the most specific and sensitive diagnostic test, although a positive challenge test does not proof that the immune system is involved. The Cow Milk Symptom Score (CoMiSS™) is an awareness tool that enables healthcare professionals to better recognize symptoms related to the ingestion of cow milk, but it still needs validation as diagnostic tool. The current recommended elimination diet is a cow milk based extensive hydrolysate, although rice hydrolysates or soy infant formula can be considered in some cases. About 10 to 15% of infants allergic to cow milk will also react to soy. Mainly because of the higher cost, amino acid based formula is reserved for severe cases. There is no place for infant formula with intact protein from other animals as cross-over allergenicity is high. During recent years, attention focused also on the bifidogenic effect of prebiotics and more recently also on human milk oligosaccharides. A bifidogenic gastrointestinal microbiome may decrease the risk to develop allergic disease. The addition of probiotics and prebiotics to the elimination diet in treatment may enhance the development of tolerance development. Conclusion: Breastfeeding is the best way to feed infants. Cow milk based extensive hydrolysates remain the first option for the treatment of CMA for the majority of patients, while amino acid formulas are reserved for the most severe cases. Rice hydrolysates and soy infant formula are second choice options. Partial hydrolysates with clinical proof of efficacy are recommended in some guidelines in the prevention of CMA and allergic disease in at risk infants, and may be considered as an option as protein source in starter infant formula.