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

Abstract

ObjeCtiveTo determine whether feeding infants with hydrolysed formula reduces their risk of allergic or autoimmune disease.

Economic value of using partially hydrolysed infant formula for risk reduction of atopic dermatitis in high-risk, not exclusively breastfed infants in Singapore

“…( [31][32][33][34] Potential alternative data sources for the efficacy of the intervention would have been one of several meta-analyses, (21,(27)(28)(29) However, there is some disagreement between different meta-analyses conducted at different times by different researchers regarding the effect of hydrolysed formula on AD risk. Three such analyses (21,27,28) concluded several years ago that hydrolysed formulas are recommended in the first 4-6 months of life for the primary prevention of allergic diseases in high-risk infants who are unable to be completely breastfed.…”

“…Three such analyses (21,27,28) concluded several years ago that hydrolysed formulas are recommended in the first 4-6 months of life for the primary prevention of allergic diseases in high-risk infants who are unable to be completely breastfed. A more recent meta-analysis by Boyle et al (29) came to a very different conclusion, adopting a more critical assessment of the published literature (notably concerning publication bias, among others). This recent analysis indicated that the current guidelines recommending hydrolysates to prevent allergic disease in high-risk infants are not supported.…”

“…Results from studies (24)(25)(26) and some, (21,27,28) but not all, (29) meta-analyses show a reduction in AD incidence with early feeding of high-risk infants with partially hydrolysed 100% whey-based (PHF-W) or extensively hydrolysed casein-based (EHF-C) formulas compared to CMF. In particular, a clinical trial involving 110 Singapore children with firstdegree atopic family history followed from birth to 30 months of age showed that the onset of AD was delayed when exclusively fed with PHF-W compared to CMF.…”

Interference in public health policy

“…For decades, the baby food industry claimed that formulas containing hydrolysed proteins reduce the risk of allergies, whilst eminent scientific reviews have found no evidence to support this claim (Boyle et al, 2016). The claims of "hypoallergenic" or "HA" branding is permitted in labelling laws in many countries, despite the evidence for such claims being derived from studies sponsored by the baby food industry, with unsubstantiated results.…”

“…Industryfunded research is often selective and more favourable to the use of breastmilk substitutes than independently funded research (Boyle et al, 2016). Further, it sponsored conferences and health professional associations (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2017; Japan Society of Nutrition and Food Science, Science Council of Japan, 2015;International Nutrition Foundation, 2016;Rollins et al, 2016;Allers, 2013;Costello et al, 2017), using such sponsorship to influence and divert policy decisions and portray their products as necessary.…”