274
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Hydrolysed formula and risk of allergic or autoimmune disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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 prevent 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.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Contributors
          Role: senior lecturer in paediatric allergy
          Role: postdoctoral research fellow
          Role: medical student
          Role: medical student
          Role: medical student
          Role: medical student
          Role: medical student
          Role: postgraduate student
          Role: librarian
          Role: postdoctoral research associate
          Role: senior medical statistician
          Role: postdoctoral research fellow
          Role: professor of medical statistics
          Journal
          BMJ
          BMJ
          bmj
          BMJ : British Medical Journal
          BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
          0959-8138
          1756-1833
          2016
          8 March 2016
          : 352
          : i974
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Section of Paediatrics, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG, UK
          [2 ]Respiratory Epidemiology, Occupational Medicine and Public Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London SW3 6LR, UK
          [3 ]Imperial Consultants, London SW7 2PG, UK
          [4 ]Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
          [5 ]Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
          Author notes
          Correspondence to: R Boyle r.boyle@ 123456nhs.net
          Article
          boyr029926
          10.1136/bmj.i974
          4783517
          26956579
          27e9ea44-c743-4d05-ac94-d92ea2acc16c
          Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

          This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.

          History
          : 30 January 2016
          Categories
          Research

          Medicine
          Medicine

          Comments

          Comment on this article