Hydrolyzed Formula for Every Infant?

Abstract

Presently, hydrolyzed formulas (HF) are used primarily in infants that cannot be exclusively breastfed, those with cow's milk allergy and for primary prevention of allergic disease, but HFs are increasingly being used worldwide, begging the question if they may be recommended as the optimal choice for all standard-risk, full-term, non-exclusively breastfed infants. Data regarding the nutritional adequacy of modern-day HFs are scarce and lack long-term data suggesting that growth in infants fed HF versus an intact protein formula (IPF) is different. While human breast milk is the optimal source of nutrition for multiple reasons, a 2006 systematic review determined there were no comparable long-term studies regarding prolonged use of HFs versus breastfeeding. Meta-analyses of formula consumption and risk of atopic dermatitis (AD) have found that infants fed partially HF compared to IPF had a lower risk of AD, but there are significant limitations to these studies, making conclusions about the general use of HFs problematic. Costs should be considered in decision-making regarding the choice of the formula, but global comparison of this is difficult given large cost differences in different countries. Despite the issues raised here, the desire to provide concrete recommendations of widespread HF use needs to be balanced carefully in order not to overstate claims of benefit. Long-term studies are needed to investigate the feasibility of HF as a routine feeding option for healthy, standard-risk infants. Because of the paucity of data, routine use of HF as an equivalent option to breastfeeding or IPF cannot be supported at present based on available scientific evidence.