Abstract
Background: Allergic diseases are a major public health burden worldwide. Evidence suggests that early nutrition might play a key role in the future development of allergies and the use of hydrolyzed protein formulas have been proposed to prevent allergic disease, mainly in term infants with risk factors.
Aim: To evaluate the preventive effect of a hydrolyzed protein formula vs. an intact protein formula on allergy development in preterm infants with or without risk factors.
Methods: We performed a 3-year follow-up study of a previous triple-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Evidence of atopic dermatitis, asthma and IgE-mediated food allergies were evaluated according to a validated parental questionnaire (Comprehensive Early Childhood Allergy Questionnaire). Food sensitization was also investigated by skin prick test at 3 years of chronological age.
Results: Of the 30 subjects in the intact protein formula group and 30 in the extensively hydrolyzed formula group, respectively 18 and 16 completed the 3-year follow-up and entered the final analysis. No group differences in the incidence of atopic dermatitis, asthma, IgE-mediated food allergies, and food sensitization were found.
Conclusion: Despite the small number of cases, extensively hydrolyzed protein formula seems to be ineffective in allergic diseases prevention in preterm neonates. Further adequately powered, randomized controlled trials evaluating hydrolyzed protein formula administration to prevent allergic diseases in preterm neonates are needed.
Introduction
Allergic rhinitis (AR), asthma, eczema, and food allergy are some of the most common pediatric chronic conditions worldwide and have a major impact on children health and quality of life (1).
Allergic diseases are genetically determined but also influenced by several factors such as environmental pollution, smoke, aeroallergens, and early feeding pattern (2). To date, a tailored approach seems to be the best strategy to hamper the so-called “atopic march” (3). In this perspective, standard operative procedures to prevent allergy have become a priority in managing public health and infant feeding is considered the most important modifiable factor that can be targeted (4).
World Health Organization (WHO) states that breast milk is the best source of nutrients for both term and preterm infants, and there is some evidence of its role in decreasing the risk of allergy development (5, 6). Unfortunately human milk is not always available and the challenge for many pediatric societies remains to draw up standardized and definitive guidelines to recommend the most effective infant formula in allergy prevention (7).
More recently, hydrolyzed formulas (HF) have been proposed for prevention of allergy and many studies suggested the use of these formulas in formula-fed infants with a family history of allergic diseases (8).
The main differences between each HF are the degree and method of hydrolysis, with consequent different immunological, clinical, and nutritional effects: extensively hydrolyzed formulas (eHF) contain mostly peptides ≤3 kD, while partially hydrolyzed formulas (pHF) ≤5 kD (9).
Despite preterm infants could be at higher risk for food allergy because of their increased intestinal permeability and their possible higher food antigen uptake, they do not show higher incidence of allergic diseases when compared to term infants (10, 11).
At the moment, human milk represents the best source of nutrients for preterm infants for its bioactive effect (12). On the contrary, there is limited evidence regarding nutritional preventive action against the future development of allergies in this vulnerable population (13). This paper describes the follow-up results of a previous published triple-blind, controlled, clinical trial, in preterm neonates fed with either intact protein formula or extensively hydrolyzed formula (14, 15).
Methods
Study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, randomization and study group allocation, and feeding protocol are thoroughly described in the previous articles (14, 15).
In brief, all mothers were encouraged to exclusively breastfeed and to have an unrestricted diet during lactation. At birth all eligible preterm neonates, regardless family history of allergy, were randomized to receive one of two different blinded formulas: either preterm intact protein formula [IPF: marketed Enfamil® Premature, Mead Johnson Nutrition (MJN), Evansville, IN, USA] or infant extensively hydrolyzed protein formula (eHF: marketed Pregestimil®, MJN, Evansville, IN, USA). When breastfeeding was not sufficient, one of the two formulas, according to randomization, was given for 2 weeks. The research protocol was approved by the ethical committee of “Azienda Ospedaliero—Universitaria Consorziale Policlinico” (number 4122—date 17/2/2016). Parents or legally authorized representatives provided written informed consent prior to enrolment.
To all participants, complementary feeding was recommended after the age of 4 months, without restriction of possible allergenic foods and with intact protein milk formulas in case of insufficient breast milk. To compare the allergy-preventive effect of eHF vs. IPF, all infants were followed-up 6-monthly until 3 years of chronological age, for evidence of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and IgE-mediated food allergies according to a validated parental questionnaire (Comprehensive Early Childhood Allergy Questionnaire) (16). Food sensitization, based on positive skin prick tests at 3 years of chronological age, was also investigated.
Statistical Analysis
Participant characteristics at enrolment were compared by Student t-test (gestational age and birth weight) or chi-square test (gender, birth type, cesarean section). Outcomes such as evidence of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and IgE-mediated food allergies were analyzed by chi-square test. All participants who met study entrance criteria and completed the 3 years follow-up period were evaluated. A subset analysis was carried out to assess participants at high-risk for allergy. High-risk infants were defined as having at least one parent or a single first-degree relative with a history of allergic disease. All tests were conducted at α = 0.05. All analyses were conducted using IBM® SPSS® Statistics 23.
Results
A total of 34/60 (56.6%) participants completed the 3-year follow-up study (IPF: 18; eHF: 16) and were included in the primary analysis. Dropouts occurred in 26 children due to protocol violation (3 patients) and voluntary withdrawal by parents during the follow-up period (23 patient) (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Flow chart of the study recruitment process.
A subset analysis among infants at high risk for allergy included 19 participants: IPF n = 12 (66.7%); eHF n = 7 (43.8%); p = 0.17. Study flow chart is shown in Figure 1.
Infant characteristics at 3 years of chronological age were similar between groups (Table 1).
Table 1
| IPF | eHF | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, n(%) | 0.774 | ||
| Male | 11 (61%) | 9 (56%) | |
| Female | 7 (39%) | 7 (44%) | |
| Birth type, n(%) | 0.311 | ||
| Singleton | 7 (39%) | 9 (56%) | |
| Twin | 11 (61%) | 7 (44%) | |
| Gestational age, weeks, mean (SD) | 30 (1,7) | 29,8 (2) | 0.860 |
| Birth weight g, mean (SD) | 1303 (254) | 1334 (244) | 0.723 |
| High risk for allergy, n (%) | 12 (67%) | 7 (44%) | 0.179 |
| Breastfeeding duration, n(%) | 0.725 | ||
| Exclusively formula | 2 (11%) | 2 (14%) | |
| Breastfeeding <4 months | 12 (67%) | 8 (53%) | |
| Breastfeeding >4 months | 4 (22%) | 5 (33%) |
Infant characteristics.
No difference in incidence of atopic dermatitis, asthma, IgE-mediated food allergies and food sensitization (positive skin prick test) were detected (primary or subset analysis) between groups (Table 2).
Table 2
| Outcomes | Primary analysis | p-value Fisher Exact Test | Subset analysis | p-value Fisher Exact Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPF n. 18 | eHF n. 16 | IPF n.12 | eHF n. 7 | |||
| Atopic dermatitis, n (%) | 3 (17%) | 3 (18%) | 0.61 | 3 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 0.22 |
| Asthma, n (%) | 2 (11%) | 2 (12%) | 0.65 | 2 (17%) | 1 (14%) | 0.70 |
| IgE-mediated food, n (%) | 1 (6%) | 1 (6%) | 0.72 | 1 (8%) | 1 (14%) | 0.61 |
| Food sensitization (positive skin prick test), n (%) | 2 (11%) | 2 (12%) | 0.65 | 2 (17%) | 2 (29%) | 0.47 |
Study outcomes.
Discussion
The results of our study indicated that eHFs did not provide any preventive effects of allergy in preterm infants. Despite the low number of patients and the inadequate sample size, our findings are in keeping with the most recent meta-analysis regarding HF effect on allergy prevention in term neonates. In 2015, Boyle et al. found no consistent evidence to support the use of HF formula for reducing risk of allergic diseases (17). Similarly, Osborn et al. in a 2018 Cochrane found no difference in allergic diseases such as asthma, eczema, rhinitis, and food allergy in infants fed with a HF compared to IPF (18).
Only another randomized, double-blind study was conducted in high-risk preterm infants by Szajewska et al. (19). They failed to demonstrate a decrease in the incidence of allergic diseases, yet highlighted only a preventive effect of eHF on atopic dermatitis (AD) during a short follow-up of 12 months.
Conversely, several studies have been conducted in the last decades to investigate the preventive role of HFs on allergy development in term infants (Table 3).
Table 3
| First author and year | Characteristics of population | Primary outcome | Secondary outcomes, if any | Types of the milk formula used | Techniques used | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zeiger et al. (20) | 288 high-risk infants | To evaluate the effect of: Maternal or infant food allergen avoidance on AM Sensitization and serum IgE levels at 3 and 4 years of age lgG BLG and IgG OVA responses from birth to 2 years of age | To detect the interaction between genetics and environment on atopy development | eHF-C (Nutramigen) | SPTs Total IgE sIgE Nasal eosinophil determination Specific IgG BLG and IgG OVA DBPCFC | Maternal or infant food allergen avoidance decreased the cumulative prevalence of both food allergy and food sensitization (SPTs), conversely The period prevalence of food allergy or food SPT at 3 and 4 years of age Did not undergo any changes Cow milk avoidance associated with the use of breast milk and/or casein hydrolysate formula from birth to 1 year of age, reduced significantly IgG BLG response from 4 months to 2 years of age Egg avoidance has been slightly more effective in reducing IgG response to OVA, compared to standard feeding practices, which was evident at 2 years of age Influence of genetic and environmental factors toward serum IgE levels |
| Mallet et al. (21) | 177 high-risk infants | To assess the allergy preventive effect of eHF-C in high-risk infant (evaluated at 4,12, 24, and 48 months of age) | eHF-C CMF | Total IgE sIgE | A preventive effect on the prevalence of eczema but not of asthma in eHF-C group | |
| Halken et al. (22) | 158 high-risk infants | To examine whether eHF-W (Profylac) is as protective as eHF-C (Nutramigen) considering the development of CMA and AM until 18 months of age | eHF-C (Nutramigen) eHF-W (Profylac) | Oral challenge | The use of eHF-W and eHF-C during the first 6 months of life reduces the incidence of CMA until 18 months of life | |
| Vandenplas et al. (23) | 58 high-risk infants | To evaluate the long term effect of pHF-W on the prophylaxis of AM | pHF-W CMF | -SPTs -Total IgE -sIgE | Reduced prevalence of eczema and incidence of diarrhea in the first 6 months of life in the group fed with pHF-W | |
| Odelram et al. (24) | 91 high-risk infants | To compare eHF-W with CMF in preventing the development of atopy | To compare growth with the use of eHF-W (Profylac) and CMF | eHF-W (Profylac) CMF | -SPTs -total IgE -sIgE | Despite the lack of strong evidence in the prevention of AM and sensitization, eHF-W seems to be a valid aid in the first 6 months of age No differences between eHF-W (Profylac) and CMF considering weight gain and growth |
| Oldaeus et al. (25) | 155 high-risk infants | To compare AD incidence and allergic sensitization during the first 18 months of life in high-risk infants, fed with eHF, pHF, or CMF from weaning up to 9 months of age | pHF-W eHF-C (Nutramigen) CMF | -SPTs -sIgE | Allergy preventive effect of eHF but not of pHF during the first 18 months of life | |
| Halken et al. (26) | 595 high-risk infants | To compare the allergy preventive effect of pHF–W with two eHFs: eHF-C (Nutramigen), and eHF-W (Profylac) | To confirm the absence of differences in the allergy preventive effect of the two eHFs, eHF-C (Nutramigen), and eHF-W (Profylac) | pHF-W eHF-C (Nutramigen) eHF-W (Profylac) | -SPTs -sIgE | Less effectiveness of pHF-W than eHFs in the prevention of CMA No difference regarding the development of AM between the two eHFs, eHF-C (Nutramigen) and eHF-W (Profylac) |
| von Berg et al. (27) | 2,252 high-risk TERM infants (hereditary risk of atopy) | To evaluate the preventive role of HFs compared with standard CMF in the development of AM at 1 year of age (AD, FA-GIT, and urticaria) | eHF-C eHF-W pHF-W CMF | SCORAD method SPT sIgE Oral challenge | Protective effect of HFs (eHF-C and pHF-W) against AD and AM in the first year of life | |
| Szajewska et al. (19) | 122 high-risk PRETERM infants (hereditary risk of atopy) | To evaluate whether the use of HFs may prevent the development of AM (AD, GI symptoms, or wheezing) within 2–5 and 12 months of age | To measure the percentages of preterm neonates who interrupted the intervention due to formula non-acceptance or were lost for any reason at the follow-up | e-HF pHF Standard preterm formula | Total IgE sIgE | Preventive effect of eHF on AD at 12 months Increased risk for preterm infants who had been fed with eHF and then interrupted for any reason and particularly for non-acceptance of the formula |
| Lowe et al. (28) | 620 high-risk infants (hereditary risk of atopy) | To determine whether pHF-W or soy formula modify the risk of the development of AM (eczema and food reaction) up to 2 years of age | To assess the individual incidence of eczema and food reaction in the first 2 years of life and SPT reactivity at 6, 12, and 24 months To detect the prevalence of AR, eczema and asthma at 6 and 7 years of age | pHF-W Soy formula CMF | SPTs to a milk, egg, peanut, dust mite, rye grass, and cat dander performed at 6, 12, and 24 months | No evidence that pHW-F or soy formula reduced the risk of AM in the first 2 years of life No evidence of reduced risk of SPT reactivity No evidence of reduced risk for AR, eczema, and asthma at 6 and 7 years of age |
| von Berg et al. (29) | 1,451 (from the original total of 2,252 high-risk TERM infants) | To evaluate the effect of the early use of HFs on the development of AM (AD, AR, and asthma) at school age | eHF-C eHF-W pHF-W CMF | ISAAC questionnaire SCORAD method sIgE | Significant reduction of only AD at 10 years of age in children who had been fed with eHF-C or pHF-W in the early stage of their life, without a preventive effect on asthma or AR | |
| von Berg et al. (30) | 1,377 (from the original total of 2,252 high-risk TERM infants) | To assess the relationship between early use of HFs and the development of AR, asthma, and eczema up to adolescence | To detect allergic sensitization through sIgE and respiratory function (spirometry) | eHF-C eHF-W pHF-W CMF | ISAAC questionnaire SCORAD method sIgE Spirometry | Preventive effect of eHF-C (mainly) and pHF-W on eczema, AR, and asthma up to adolescence |
Summary of RCTs assessing the role of different HF on allergic diseases.
CMF, cow's milk formula; CMA, cow's milk allergy; eHF-W, extensively hydrolyzed whey formula; eHF-C, extensively hydrolyzed casein formula; pHF-W, partially hydrolyzed whey formula; AM, allergic manifestations; AD, atopic dermatitis; AR, allergic rhinitis; FA-GIT, food allergy with manifestation in the gastrointestinal tract; GI, gastrointestinal; ISAAC, International Study on Asthma and Allergy in Childhood; sIgE, specific IgE; SPTs, skin prick tests; OFC, Oral Food Challenge; CMF, cow's milk formula; DBPCFC, double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges.
A preventive effect of eHF both on food allergy and sensitization was first outlined in 1992, in the RCT conducted by Zeiger et al. on 288 high-risk infants (20).
This result, despite the lack of strong evidence, was later confirmed by Odelram et al. (24) and Oldaeus et al. (25). Mallet et al. in their study on 177 high-risk infants found a preventive effect on eczema linked to the early use of eHF, without any effect on asthma (21).
Similar results on eczema were found by Vandenplas et al., in a RCT on 58 high-risk infants (23).
Another RCT on 158 high-risk infants was conducted by Halken et al., who found a reduction of CMA in the first 6 months of life associated to the early use of eHFs (whey or casein) (22).
Subsequently these results were confirmed by the same authors in a larger study on 595 high-risk infants randomized to receive eHF-W, eHF-C, or pHF (26).
The German Infant Nutritional Intervention (GINI) study is to date the largest, spontaneous, quasi-randomized trial in which 2,252 children (with a family history of allergic diseases) were randomized to receive extensively hydrolyzed casein formula (eHF-C), extensively hydrolyzed whey formula (eHF-W), partially hydrolyzed whey formula (pHF-W), or standard cow's milk formula, in order to evaluate the possible preventive role of these formulas in the development of allergic diseases during a long term follow-up (27, 29–32). They found a protective effect of eHF-C and pHF-W against AD at 1 year follow-up and a significant reduction of AD at 7–10 years of age in children. However, no preventive effect against asthma or AR was shown. These results were confirmed in the 15-year follow-up study, where the authors reported also fewer diagnoses of AR and asthma in those children fed with hydrolysates (mainly eHF-C) in their early stages of life, as if the preventive effects of HF on these two pathologies had occurred later in time. Throughout the follow-up period eHF-W did not show any preventive effects toward allergic diseases and none of the HF had influence on IgE sensitization.
Differently from GINI study, the Melbourne Atopic Cohort Study, conducted on 620 high-risk infants randomized to pHF-W, soy formula or cow's milk formula, showed neither significant difference in allergic outcomes (eczema and food reactions) in the first 2 years of life nor evidence of reduced risk of SPT reactivity and of lower risk for AR, eczema and asthma up to 6–7 years of age (28).
Furthermore, in an observational population-based study, Goldsmith et al. examined the possible association between the development of food allergy at 1 year of age and either duration of exclusive breastfeeding or use of pHF (33). They found that the incidence of food allergy was not reduced by either the duration of exclusive breastfeeding or by the use of pHF, suggesting that allergen avoidance may not be helpful in allergy prevention.
Pooling data on HF in meta-analyses is problematic due to the heterogeneity of HF products and the different sources of proteins, hence different HF should not be considered equivalent. For this reason, Szajewska et al. conducted a meta-analysis taking into consideration exclusively studies using a unique 100%-whey pHF. They found a preventive effect against all allergic diseases and eczema (34). Based on all data from the literature, use of pHF-W formula has been considered safe in healthy term neonates (35, 36).
At present, the conclusions of guidelines and meta-analysis on the role of HF for prevention of allergic diseases differ in term of recommendations, outcomes, and target population. According to some pediatric Societies the use of pHF is still indicated in infants at high risk of allergy, when mother's milk is not available or is insufficient (37, 38). Differently, other Societies, based on emerging evidence, changed their previous recommendations and no longer proposed HF for prevention of allergic diseases (39–41).
The aim of this paper was to analyse the effect of HF on allergy prevention in preterm infants using follow-up data of a previous randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study. To our knowledge, this is the first long-term follow-up paper concerning allergy prevention with HF in preterm infants. We acknowledge a possible limitation of our literature search due to the search restriction for preterm infants. In fact, using Medical Subject Headings-Terms for preterm infants, we could have missed studies in which subgroup analysis of preterm infants have been carried out, but not mentioned in the title or abstract. However, in our view, publication bias could be negligible. The main limitations of the present study can be considered the underpowered number of preterm enrolled, the short period of eHF administration, the drop-out rate and the lack of quantitative diagnostic methods used to diagnose allergy other than a validate questionnaire and SPT.
To sum up, further well-designed large studies in preterm infants should be conducted to address the preventive effects of HF for allergic diseases and the nutritional non-inferiority of preterm HF compared to modern preterm IPF in these vulnerable population. Moreover, data on long term safety of HF in preterm infants and cost/benefit ratio analysis are needed.
Evidences of hypersensitivity have been described also as predisposing factor in patients with functional gastrointestinal diseases (42), whose high prevalence have been recently found in preterm newborns (43). Despite self-limited diseases, a preventive intervention for FGIDs, especially for high-risk population, might have important clinical, and socioeconomical effects (44, 45). HFs have been investigated as dietary modification for management of these conditions with inconsistent evidences, despite some authors suggested a decreased incidence in infants fed with pHF (46, 47).
Finally, bio-effective agents such as probiotic have been recently added to HF to enhance their putative role in allergic disease prevention (48) and should be evaluated since preterm infants could be considered a strategy population for their well-known dysbiosis-related conditions (49, 50).
Conclusion
To date many rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating term infants concluded that evidence is not robust to support the use of HF to prevent atopic diseases. Our data did not show any allergy preventive effect of eHF in a small cohort of preterm infants and highlighted the need of further large studies to better clarify the possible role of HF for allergy disease prevention in this population.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Policlinico di Bari Ethics Committee. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin.
Author contributions
MB conceptualized and designed the study. MT and NLae assessed study participants and collected study data. MF performed statistical analyses. AD interpreted data and drafted the initial manuscript. GB and AZ performed literature search. MC, LP, SS, and RP revised the manuscript. NLaf coordinated and supervised all activities. All authors contributed to the intellectual content, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final version. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that this study received funding from Mead Johnson Nutrition in order to independently enroll infants and coordinate the original study. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.
- AD
atopic dermatitis
- AR
Allergic rhinitis
- CM
Cow's milk
- CMA
Cow's milk allergy
- eHF-C
extensively hydrolyzed casein formula
- eHF
extensively hydrolyzed formula
- FGIDs
functional gastrointestinal diseases
- HF
hydrolyzed formula
- HM
human milk
- IPF
intact protein formula
- pHF-W
partially hydrolyzed whey formula
- pHF
partially hydrolyzed formula
- RCT
randomized controlled trials
- SPT
skin prick test
- VLBW
very low birth weight
- WHO
World Health Organization.
Abbreviations
References
1.
AsherMIMontefortSBjörksténBLaiCKStrachanDPWeilandSKet al. Worldwide time trends in the prevalence of symptoms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema in childhood: ISAAC Phases One and Three repeat multi country cross-sectional surveys. Lancet. (2006) 368:733–43. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69283-0
2.
HalkenS. Prevention of allergic disease in childhood: clinical and epidemiological aspects of primary and secondary allergy prevention. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. (2004) 15:9–32. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2004.0148b.x
3.
MastrorilliCCaffarelliCHoffmann-SommergruberK. Food allergy and atopic dermatitis: prediction, progression, and prevention. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. (2017) 28:831–40. 10.1111/pai.12831
4.
D'AuriaEMameliCPirasCCococcioniLUrbaniAZuccottiGet al. Precision medicine in cow's milk allergy: proteomics perspectives from allergens to patients. J Proteomics. (2018) 188:173–80. 10.1016/j.jprot.2018.01.018
5.
JärvinenKMMartinHOyoshiMK. Immunomodulatory effects of breast milk on food allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. (2019) 123:133–43. 10.1016/j.anai.2019.04.022
6.
BaldassarreMEBellantuonoLMastromarinoPMiccheliAFanelliMLaforgiaN. Gut and breast milk microbiota and their role in the development of the immune function. Curr Pediatr Rep. (2014) 2:218–26. 10.1007/s40124-014-0051-y
7.
D'AuriaEAbrahamsMZuccottiGVenterC. Personalized nutrition approach in food allergy: is it prime time yet?Nutrients. (2019) 11:359. 10.3390/nu11020359
8.
CabanaMD. The role of hydrolyzed formula in allergy prevention. Ann Nutr Metab. (2017) 70:38–45. 10.1159/000460269
9.
SalvatoreSVandenplasY. Hydrolyzed proteins in allergy. Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser. (2016) 86:11–27. 10.1159/000442699
10.
IndrioFRiezzoGCavalloLDi MauroAFrancavillaR. Physiological basis of food intolerance in VLBW. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. (2011) 24(Suppl. 1):64–6. 10.3109/14767058.2011.607583
11.
LiemJJKozyrskyjALHuqSIBeckerAB. The risk of developing food allergy in premature or low-birth-weight children. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2007) 119:1203–9. 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.12.671
12.
LoÅNnnerdalB. Bioactive proteins in human milk-potential benefits for preterm infants. Clin Perinatol. (2017) 44:179–91. 10.1016/j.clp.2016.11.013
13.
ZachariassenGFaerkJEsbergBHFenger-GronJMortensenSChristesenHTet al. Allergic diseases among very preterm infants according to nutrition after hospital discharge. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. (2011) 22:515–20. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2010.01102.x
14.
BaldassarreMEDi MauroAMontagnaOFanelliMCapozzaMWamplerJLet al. Faster gastric emptying is unrelated to feeding success in preterm infants: randomized controlled trial. Nutrients. (2019) 11:1670. 10.3390/nu11071670
15.
BaldassarreMEDi MauroAFanelliMCapozzaMWamplerJLCooperTet al. Shorter time to full preterm feeding using intact protein formula: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:2911. 10.3390/ijerph16162911
16.
MinasyanABabajanyanACampbellDNananR. Validation of a comprehensive early childhood allergy questionnaire. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. (2015) 26:522–9. 10.1111/pai.12415
17.
BoyleRJIerodiakonouDKhanTChivingeJRobinsonZGeogheganNet al. Hydrolysed formula and risk of allergic or autoimmune disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. (2016) 352:i974. 10.1136/bmj.i974
18.
OsbornDASinnJKJonesLJ. Infant formulas containing hydrolysed protein for prevention of allergic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2018) 10:CD003664. 10.1002/14651858.CD003664.pub6
19.
SzajewskaHMrukowiczJZStoinskaBProchowskaA. Extensively and partially hydrolysed preterm formulas in the prevention of allergic diseases in preterm infants: a randomized, double-blind trial. Acta Paediatr Oslo Nor. (1992) (2004) 93:1159–65.
20.
ZeigerRSHellerSSampsonHA. Genetic and environmental factors affecting the development of atopy through age 4 in children of atopic parents: a prospective randomized controlled study of food allergen avoidance. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. (1992) 3:110–27.
21.
MalletEHenocqA. Long-term prevention of allergic diseases by using protein hydrolysate formula in at-risk infants. J Pediatrics. (1992) S95–100.
22.
HalkenSHøstAHansenLGØsterballeO. Preventive effect of feeding high-risk infants a casein hydrolysate formula or an ultrafiltrated whey hydrolysate formula. A prospective, randomized, comparative clinical study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. (1993) 4:173–81.
23.
VandenplasYHauserBVan den BorreC. The long-term effect of a partial whey hydrolysate formula on the prophylaxis of atopic disease. Eur J Pediatr. (1995) 154:488–9.
24.
OdelramHVantoTJacobsenLKjellmanNI. Whey hydrolysate compared with cow's milk based formula for weaning at about 6 months of age in high allergy-risk infants: effects on atopic disease and sensitization. Allergy. (1996) 51:192–5.
25.
OldaeusGAnjouKBjörksténBMoranJRKjellmanNI. Extensively and partially hydrolysed infant formulas for allergy prophylaxis. Arch Dis Child. (1997) 77:4–1.
26.
HalkenSHansenKSJacobsenHPEstmannAChristensenAEHansenLGet al. Comparison of a partially hydrolyzed infant formula with two extensively hydrolyzed formulas for allergy prevention: a prospective, randomized study. Pediatric Allergy Immunol. (2000) 11:149–61. 10.1034/j.1399-3038.2000.00081.x
27.
von BergAKoletzkoSGrüblAFilipiak-PittroffBWichmannHEBauerCPet al. The effect of hydrolyzed cow's milk formula for allergy prevention in the first year of life: the German Infant Nutritional Intervention Study, a randomized double-blind trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2003) 111:533–40. 10.1067/mai.2003.101
28.
LoweAJHoskingCSBennettCMAllenKJAxelradCCarlinJBet al. Effect of a partially hydrolyzed whey infant formula at weaning on risk of allergic disease in high-risk children: a randomized controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2011) 128:360–5.e4. 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.05.006
29.
von BergAFilipiak-PittroffBKraÅNmerUHoffmannBLinkEBeckmannCet al. Allergies in high-risk schoolchildren after early intervention with cow's milk protein hydrolysates: 10-year results from the German Infant Nutritional Intervention (GINI) study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2013) 131:1565–73. 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.01.006
30.
von BergAFilipiak-PittroffBSchulzHHoffmannULinkESussmannMet al. Allergic manifestation 15 years after early intervention with hydrolyzed formulas - the GINI Study. Allergy. (2016) 71:210–9. 10.1111/all.12790
31.
von BergAKoletzkoSFilipiak-PittroffBLaubereauBGrüblAWichmannH-Eet al. Certain hydrolyzed formulas reduce the incidence of atopic dermatitis but not that of asthma: three-year results of the German Infant Nutritional Intervention Study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2007) 119:718–25. 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.11.017
32.
von BergAFilipiak-PittroffBKraÅNmerULinkEBollrathCBrockowIet al. Preventive effect of hydrolyzed infant formulas persists until age 6 years: long-term results from the German Infant Nutritional Intervention Study (GINI). J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2008) 121:1442–7. 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.04.021
33.
GoldsmithAJKoplinJJLoweAJTangMMathesonMRobinsonMet al. Formula and breast feeding in infant food allergy: a population-based study. J Paediatr Child Health. (2016) 52:377–84. 10.1111/jpc.13109
34.
SzajewskaHHorvathA. A partially hydrolyzed 100% whey formula and the risk of eczema and any allergy: an updated meta-analysis. World Allergy Organ J. (2017) 10:27. 10.1186/s40413-017-0158-z
35.
VandenplasYAlarconPFleischerDHernellOKolacekSLaigneletHet al. Should partial hydrolysates be used as starter infant formula? A working group consensus. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. (2016) 62:22–35. 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001014
36.
VandenplasYLatiffAHAFleischerDMGutiérrez-CastrellónPMiqdadyMSSmithPKet al. Partially hydrolyzed formula in non-exclusively breastfed infants: a systematic review and expert consensus. Nutrition. (2019) 57:268–74. 10.1016/j.nut.2018.05.018
37.
MuraroAHalkenSArshadSHBeyerKDuboisAEJDu ToitGet al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines. Primary prevention of food allergy. Allergy. (2014) 69:590–601. 10.1111/all.12398
38.
KoletzkoSNiggemannBAratoADiasJAHeuschkelRHusbySet al. Diagnostic approach and management of cow's-milk protein allergy in infants and children: ESPGHAN GI Committee practical guidelines. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. (2012) 55:221–9. 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31825c9482
39.
Greer FR Sicherer SH Burks AW Committee on Nutrition; Section on Allergy and Immunology. The effects of early nutritional interventions on the development of atopic disease in infants and children: the role of maternal dietary restriction, breastfeeding, hydrolyzed formulas, and timing of introduction of allergenic complementary foods. Pediatrics. (2019) 143:e20190281. 10.1542/peds.2019-0281
40.
JoshiPASmithJValeSCampbellDE. The Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy infant feeding for allergy prevention guidelines. Med J Aust. (2019) 210:89–93. 10.5694/mja2.12102
41.
di MauroGBernardiniRBarberiSCapuanoACorerraADe AngelisGet al. Prevention of food and airway allergy: consensus of the Italian society of preventive and social pediatrics, the Italian society of pediatrics allergy and immunology, and italian society of pediatrics. World Allergy Organ J. (2016) 9:28. 10.1186/s40413-016-0111-6
42.
PensabeneLSalvatoreSD'AuriaEParisiFConcolinoDBorrelliOet al. Cow's milk protein allergy in infancy: a risk factor for functional gastrointestinal disorders in children?Nutrients. (2018) 10:1716. 10.3390/nu10111716
43.
SalvatoreSBaldassarreMEDi MauroALaforgiaNTafuriSBianchiFPet al. Neonatal antibiotics and prematurity are associated with an increased risk of functional gastrointestinal disorders in the first year of life. J Pediatr. (2019) 212:44–51. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.04.061
44.
IndrioFDi MauroARiezzoGCavalloLFrancavillaR. Infantile colic, regurgitation, and constipation: an early traumatic insult in the development of functional gastrointestinal disorders in children?Eur J Pediatr. (2015) 174:841–2. 10.1007/s00431-014-2467-3
45.
IndrioFDi MauroARiezzoGPanzaRCavalloLFrancavillaR. Prevention of functional gastrointestinal disorders in neonates: clinical and socioeconomic impact. Benef Microbes. (2015) 6:195–8. 10.3920/BM2014.0078
46.
GordonMBiagioliESorrentiMLinguaGMojaLBanksSet al. Dietary modifications for infantile colic. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2018) 10:CD011029. 10.1002/14651858.CD011029.pub2
47.
VandenplasYSalvatoreS. Infant formula with partially hydrolyzed proteins in functional gastrointestinal disorders. Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser. (2016) 86:29–37. 10.1159/000442723
48.
ZuccottiGMeneghinFAcetiABaroneGCallegariMLDi MauroAet al. Probiotics for prevention of atopic diseases in infants: systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy. (2015) 70:1356–71. 10.1111/all.12700
49.
BaldassarreMEPalladinoVAmorusoAPindinelliSMastromarinoPFanelliMet al. Rationale of probiotic supplementation during pregnancy and neonatal period. Nutrients. (2018) 10:1693. 10.3390/nu10111693
50.
BaldassarreMEDi MauroACapozzaMRizzoVSchettiniFPanzaRet al. Dysbiosis and prematurity: Is there a role for probiotics?Nutrients. (2019) 11:1273. 10.3390/nu11061273
Summary
Keywords
preterm/full term infants, infant formula, hydrolyzed protein formula, hypersensitivity, allergy
Citation
Di Mauro A, Baldassarre ME, Brindisi G, Zicari AM, Tarantini M, Laera N, Capozza M, Panza R, Salvatore S, Pensabene L, Fanelli M and Laforgia N (2020) Hydrolyzed Protein Formula for Allergy Prevention in Preterm Infants: Follow-Up Analysis of a Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Front. Pediatr. 8:422. doi: 10.3389/fped.2020.00422
Received
10 April 2020
Accepted
18 June 2020
Published
30 July 2020
Volume
8 - 2020
Edited by
Gianvincenzo Zuccotti, University of Milan, Italy
Reviewed by
Francesco Cresi, University of Turin, Italy; Florence Campeotto, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, France; Carlo Caffarelli, University of Parma, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Di Mauro, Baldassarre, Brindisi, Zicari, Tarantini, Laera, Capozza, Panza, Salvatore, Pensabene, Fanelli and Laforgia.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Maria Elisabetta Baldassarre mariaelisabetta.baldassarre@uniba.it
This article was submitted to Pediatric Immunology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Pediatrics
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.