Use of hypoallergenic formula in the prevention of atopic disease among Asian children

Abstract

Exclusive feeding of hypoallergenic milk formula in the first 4 months of life has a protective effect in terms of the development of atopic dermatitis in the first 2 years of life, compared to feeding with cow's milk formula.

Short-term Effect of Partially Hydrolyzed Formula on the Prevention of Development of Atopic Dermatitis in Infants at High Risk

“…However, our results showed that the significantly less number of atopic dermatitis occurred in high risk infants fed with the partially hydrolyzed formula compared with the standard cow's milk formula, although this study did not compare the effects between the extensively hydrolyzed formula and the partially hydrolyzed formula. This data support the previous reports (4,8,13,14), in which the partially hydrolyzed formula prevented the development of either atopic disease or cow's milk allergy. In addition, no difference in the rate of growth was observed between the PHF and SF group.…”

“…Because the partially hydrolyzed formula is cheaper and more palatable than the extensively hydrolyzed formula, it was introduced for feeding high-risk infants who cannot tolerate the extensively hydrolyzed formula to prevent the development of atopic disease. The preventive effect of the partially hydrolyzed formula is still controversial because it contains a significant number of peptides with relatively high molecular weight compared with the extensively hydrolyzed formula (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8).…”

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

“…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. (30) The cumulative eczema incidence in the PHF-W group compared to the CMF group was significantly lower at three months, six months, 12 months, 18 months and 24 months, and lower (28.3% vs. 43.9%),…”

“…(30) Furthermore, results of economic analyses based on the German Infant Nutritional Intervention (GINI) study demonstrated that PHF-W was cost-effective compared to CMF in high-risk, non-exclusively breastfed infants. (31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36) A majority of these analyses were conducted from a Western perspective, except for two studies conducted in the Philippines (36) and Malaysia.…”

“…(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36) A majority of these analyses were conducted from a Western perspective, except for two studies conducted in the Philippines (36) and Malaysia. (35) The availability of clinical trial data from Singapore (30) provides a unique opportunity to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PHF-W using local evidence. Thus, the present analysis used data from the Singapore trial by Chan et al, (30) in combination with additional sources, to analyse, from a societal perspective, the economic impact of exclusive use of PHF-W compared to CMF in healthy infants at high-risk of AD in Singapore, as a short-term, early nutritional intervention for AD risk reduction.…”