Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study

Meihong Xu,Yibin Wang,Zhiyong Dai,Yanchun Zhang,Yong Li,Junbo Wang

doi:10.3402/fnr.v59.28613

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the growth and nutritional status of infants fed goat milk–based formula (GMF) and cow milk–based formula (CMF).MethodsThe study was conducted in Beijing, China. It was a double-blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 79 infants aged 0–3 months old were recruited and randomized in GMF or CMF group. The infants were fed the allocated formula to 6 months. The weight, length, and head circumference were measured at the enrolment, 3 and 6 months. The start time and types of solid food were recorded. Blood elements, urinal, and fecal parameters were also tested.ResultsThe average weight of infants in the GMF group (mean±SD) was 4.67±0.99 kg and in the CMF group 4.73±1.10 kg at enrolment, and 8.75±0.98 kg (GMF) and 8.92±0.88 kg (CMF) at 6 months. There were no differences in the adjusted intention-to-treat analyses of weight, length, head circumference, and BMI z-scores between the two formula-fed groups over the 6-month study. Similarly, there were no remarkable differences in the timing and types of solid food, blood elements, urinal, and feces parameters, between the GMF and CMF group. No group differences have been shown in bowel motion consistency, duration of crying, ease of settling, or frequency of adverse events.ConclusionsGMF-provided growth and nutritional outcomes did not differ from those provided by CMF.

Highlights

The blindness index, which indicates the percentage of mothers who guessed their treatment group correctly above chance, was 10.3% for the goat milkÁbased formula (GMF) group compared with 12.5% for the cow milkÁbased formula (CMF) group
The aim of the present study is to evaluate, in healthy term infants, the effect of feeding GMF for 6 months on growth, nutritional status, tolerance to formula, and a wide range of health-related outcomes in a randomized controlled trial, comparing with CMF
In particular, this study shows that adequate growth and nutritional status is sustained when GMF is the predominant source of nutrition

Summary

Subjects and methods

Study design and participants This was a single center, prospective, double-blind, randomized, and controlled comparison of commercially available infant formulas: GMF and CMF. A unique identifying code was created for each enrolled infant and used to label all the formulas for that infant The researcher sent these codes to the formulapackaging company, instructing the packing company on which unique codes were to be applied to boxes of GMF and CMF. The researchers received unblinded data from the trial at monthly intervals They reviewed the non-serious and serious adverse events and made recommendations on study continuation to the principal investigator. Other assessments Demographic and baseline characteristics, including infant sex, weight, and length at birth, age at enrolment, and anthropometric measurements at enrolment and maternal age, parity, and history of smoking and drug, and alcohol use during pregnancy, were recorded at trial entry.

Results

Discussion

Conclusions