Background: Faecal calprotectin has been proposed as a sensitive marker for gastrointestinal inflammation in children and adults. High levels have been reported in healthy newborns and during the first months of life; the effect of the kind of feeding on the calprotectin concentration in stools is controversial. Objective: To evaluate faecal calprotectin values in healthy, exclusively breast-fed (BF) or formula-fed (FF) infants. Methods: Stool samples were obtained from 74 healthy infants (39 exclusively BF and 35 exclusively FF) with a median age of 51 days (range 13–90). Exclusion criteria were acute infections and treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs. Stool samples were stored at –20°C until they were analysed, and the faecal calprotectin concentration was detected using a commercial quantitative enzyme-linked immunoassay (Calprest; Eurospital SpA, Trieste, Italy). Results: The median faecal calprotectin concentration was significantly higher in BF infants (555.00 µg/g, range 122.5–2,000.0 µg/g) than in FF ones (206.60 µg/g, range 31.2–797.6 µg/g) (p < 0.001). We observed a significantly higher median stool frequency in BF infants than in FF ones (p < 0.001), but multiple regression analysis (independent variables: kind of feeding and stool frequency; dependent variable: calprotectin) showed a significant coefficient for the kind of feeding, but not for stool frequency (p = 0.937). Conclusions: Our findings show that the kind of feeding influences the faecal calprotectin concentration, with higher values in healthy exclusively BF infants than in FF ones. Our study does not allow us to clearly identify the reason for our finding; this could be due to hormones (such as ghrelin and leptin), cytokines and other immunostimulating and growth factors (such as epidermal growth factor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in human milk, which contribute to the development of the gastrointestinal immune system. Further investigations are needed to better clarify the mechanism underlying the relationship between feeding and faecal calprotectin levels in young infants.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy on crying episodes owing to infantile colic of a new infant formula containing partially hydrolysed whey proteins, prebiotic oligosaccharides (OS), with a high b-palmitic acid content. Design: Prospective randomized controlled study. Setting: Italy. Subjects: Two hundred and sixty-seven formula-fed infants, aged less than 4 months, with infantile colic, were randomized to receive either the new infant formula (study treatment (ST)) or a standard formula and simethicone (6 mg/kg twice a day) (control treatment (CT)). A questionnaire was given to parents to evaluate for 14 days the daily number of colic episodes and crying time. Results: Out of the 199 infants who completed the study, 96 were treated with the new formula and 103 were not treated. Infants receiving the new formula had a significant decrease in colic episodes after 1 week (2.4771.94 at day 7 vs 5.9971.84 at the study entry) compared to infants receiving the CT (3.7271.98 at day 7 vs 5.4171.88 at the study entry) (Po0.0001). Also at day 14, the crying episodes were significantly different between the two groups of infants (1.7671.60 in ST vs 3.3272.06 in CT) (Po0.0001). Conclusions: The use of a partially hydrolysed formula supplemented with fructo-and galacto-OS induces a reduction of crying episodes in infants with colic after 7 and 14 days when compared with a standard formula and simethicone.
The present study shows that colic in breastfed infant improves within 1 week of treatment with an extract based on Matricariae recutita, Foeniculum vulgare and Melissa officinalis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.