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.

WITHDRAWN: Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Allergy is common and may be associated with foods, including cow's milk formula (CMF). Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy. However, it is unclear whether hydrolysed formulas can be advocated for prevention of allergy in infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergy and food allergy 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 which infants at low or high risk of allergy and which infants receiving early, short-term or prolonged formula feeding may benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group supplemented by cross referencing of previous reviews and publications (updated August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergy and food allergy. We conducted meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (FE) model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days' infant supplementation with an EHF whilst in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. Results showed no difference in infant allergy or childhood cow's milk allergy (CMA). 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. One large quasi-random study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance among low-risk infants (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.00).Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was associated with a reduction in infant allergy (eight studies, 2852 infants; FE RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100) and infant CMA (two studies, 405 infants; FE RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86). We had substantial methodological concerns regarding studies and concerns regarding publication bias, as substantial numbers of studies including those in high-risk infants have not comprehensively reported allergy outcomes (GRADE quality of evidence 'very low').Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was not associated with a difference in childhood allergy and led to no differences in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy. Many of the analyses assessing specific allergy are underpowered.Subroup analyses showed that infant allergy was reduced in studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy who used a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF. Studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF found a reduction in infant CMA.

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 allergy. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA.In infants at high risk of allergy not exclusively breast fed, very low-quality evidence suggests that prolonged hydrolysed formula feeding compared with CMF feeding reduces infant allergy and infant CMA. Studies have found no difference in childhood allergy and no difference in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy.Very low-quality evidence shows that prolonged use of a partially hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for partial or exclusive feeding was associated with a reduction in infant allergy incidence and CMA incidence, and that prolonged use of an EHF versus a PHF reduces infant food allergy.

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

BACKGROUND

Allergy is common and may be associated with foods, including cow's milk formula (CMF). Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy. However, it is unclear whether hydrolysed formulas can be advocated for prevention of allergy in infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects on allergy and food allergy 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 which infants at low or high risk of allergy and which infants receiving early, short-term or prolonged formula feeding may benefit from hydrolysed formulas.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group supplemented by cross referencing of previous reviews and publications (updated August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergy and food allergy. We conducted meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (FE) model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies assessed the effect of three to four days' infant supplementation with an EHF whilst in hospital after birth versus pasteurised human milk feed. Results showed no difference in infant allergy or childhood cow's milk allergy (CMA). 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. One large quasi-random study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance among low-risk infants (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.00).Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was associated with a reduction in infant allergy (eight studies, 2852 infants; FE RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100) and infant CMA (two studies, 405 infants; FE RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86). We had substantial methodological concerns regarding studies and concerns regarding publication bias, as substantial numbers of studies including those in high-risk infants have not comprehensively reported allergy outcomes (GRADE quality of evidence 'very low').Prolonged infant feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF was not associated with a difference in childhood allergy and led to no differences in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy. Many of the analyses assessing specific allergy are underpowered.Subroup analyses showed that infant allergy was reduced in studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy who used a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF. Studies that enrolled infants at high risk of allergy; used a PHF compared with a CMF; used prolonged and exclusive feeding of a hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF; and used a partially hydrolysed whey formula compared with a CMF found a reduction in infant CMA.

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 allergy. Very low-quality evidence indicates that short-term use of an EHF compared with a CMF may prevent infant CMA.In infants at high risk of allergy not exclusively breast fed, very low-quality evidence suggests that prolonged hydrolysed formula feeding compared with CMF feeding reduces infant allergy and infant CMA. Studies have found no difference in childhood allergy and no difference in specific allergy, including infant and childhood asthma, eczema and rhinitis and infant food allergy.Very low-quality evidence shows that prolonged use of a partially hydrolysed formula compared with a CMF for partial or exclusive feeding was associated with a reduction in infant allergy incidence and CMA incidence, and that prolonged use of an EHF versus a PHF reduces infant food allergy.