Extensive and Partial Protein Hydrolysate Preterm Formulas

Abstract

Protein hydrolysate formulas for preterm infants recently have been developed. However, the indications for the use of such formulas are unclear. The aim of this article is to systematically evaluate the effect of protein hydrolysate formulas in the feeding of preterm infants through searching the MEDLINE (1966-August 2006) and Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2006) databases. There is little evidence to support the use of extensive and partial protein hydrolysate formulas for preterm infants. High quality, long-term trials are required before these formulas should be offered routinely in preference to other types of formula for preterm infants.

What's new in enterally feeding the preterm infant?

“…However a recent study did not find any advantage of hydrolysed over whole-protein formula33 or breast milk34 and a review of the literature up to august 2006 concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant routine use of these feeds for preterm infants 35…”

Overview of Evidence in Prevention and Aetiology of Food Allergy: A Review of Systematic Reviews

“…After removing duplicates, 374 titles and abstracts were assessed by two reviewers, who identified 55 records for full text assessment. Forty-one articles were subsequently excluded for a variety of reasons including: lack of a systematic search for studies addressing the outcome of food allergy [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]; no reported individual food allergy outcomes [56,57,58,59,60]; protocol or abstract only [61,62,63,64,65]; withdrawn from the literature [66]; earlier version of updated review [67]; Chinese language [68] and; unable to locate [69]. …”

Hydrolyzed Proteins in Preterm Infants

“…In 2007, Szajewska [33] reviewed the effect of HPFs on feeding tolerance in three studies. In the study by Riezzo et al [34] , no difference was observed between infants fed HPF (n = 18) or sPTF (n = 18) although regurgitation and vomiting were very frequent (64 and 78%, respectively).…”

“…10 vs. 12 , range 9-27 vs. 9-28 days; p = 0.0024). In her review, Szajewska [33] concluded that despite some potential clinical advantages, like shorter time to achieve full feeding, it is unclear whether the use of HPFs should be adopted as routine practice because of its limited information regarding nutritional adequacy.…”