OBJECTIVE: Infant formulas differ considerably in composition and sensory profiles. In this randomized study, we examined whether healthy infants fed anextensively protein hydrolysate formula (PHF) would differ in feeding behavior and growth from those fed cow-milk formula (CMF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Infants were randomly assigned to be fed CMF or PHF between 0.5 and 7.5 months of age. Each month for 7 months, infants were weighed and measured and then videotaped while being fed their assigned formula. Anthropometric z scores were calculated by using World Health Organization growth standards. Multilevel linear growth and piecewise mixed-effects models compared trajectories for growth measures and formula acceptance. RESULTS: When compared with infants fed CMF, infants fed PHF had significantly lower weight-for-length z scores across ages 2.5 to 7.5 months. There were no differences in length-for-age z scores, which indicate that group differences resulted from gains in weight, not length. Infants fed PHF also had significantly slower weight gain velocity compared with infants fed CMF. During the monthly assessments, PHF-fed infants consumed less formula to satiation than did CMF-fed infants across the study period. Maternal ratings of infants' acceptance of the formula did not differ at any age. CONCLUSIONS: z-score trajectories indicate that CMF-fed infants' weight gain was accelerated, whereas PHF-fed infants' weight gain was normative. Whether such differences in growth are because of differences in the protein content or amino acid profile of the formulas and, in turn, metabolism is unknown. Research on the long-term consequences of these early growth differences is needed.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Infant formulas differ considerably in composition and sensory profiles. In this randomized study, we examined whether healthy infants fed an extensively protein hydrolysate formula (PHF) would differ in feeding behavior and growth from those fed cow-milk formula (CMF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Infants were randomly assigned to be fed CMF or PHF between 0.5 and 7.5 months of age. Each month for 7 months, infants were weighed and measured and then videotaped while being fed their assigned formula. Anthropometric z scores were calculated by using World Health Organization growth standards. Multilevel linear growth and piecewise mixed-effects models compared trajectories for growth measures and formula acceptance. RESULTS: When compared with infants fed CMF, infants fed PHF had significantly lower weight-for-length z scores across ages 2.5 to 7.5 months. There were no differences in length-for-age z scores, which indicate that group differences resulted from gains in weight, not length. Infants fed PHF also had significantly slower weight gain velocity compared with infants fed CMF. During the monthly assessments, PHF-fed infants consumed less formula to satiation than did CMF-fed infants across the study period. Maternal ratings of infants' acceptance of the formula did not differ at any age. CONCLUSIONS: z-score trajectories indicate that CMF-fed infants' weight gain was accelerated, whereas PHF-fed infants' weight gain was normative. Whether such differences in growth are because of differences in the protein content or amino acid profile of the formulas and, in turn, metabolism is unknown. Research on the long-term consequences of these early growth differences is needed.
Authors: Nancy Burnham; Richard F Ittenbach; Virginia A Stallings; Marsha Gerdes; Elaine Zackai; Judy Bernbaum; Robert R Clancy; J William Gaynor Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-04-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: R J Kuczmarski; C L Ogden; L M Grummer-Strawn; K M Flegal; S S Guo; R Wei; Z Mei; L R Curtin; A F Roche; C L Johnson Journal: Adv Data Date: 2000-06-08
Authors: Valerie Burke; Lawrie J Beilin; Karen Simmer; Wendy H Oddy; Kevin V Blake; Dorota Doherty; Garth E Kendall; John P Newnham; Louis I Landau; Fiona J Stanley Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: René Koopman; Nico Crombach; Annemie P Gijsen; Stéphane Walrand; Jacques Fauquant; Arie K Kies; Sophie Lemosquet; Wim H M Saris; Yves Boirie; Luc J C van Loon Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Peter Rzehak; Stefanie Sausenthaler; Sibylle Koletzko; Dietrich Reinhardt; Andrea von Berg; Ursula Krämer; Dietrich Berdel; Christina Bollrath; Armin Grübl; Carl Peter Bauer; H-Erich Wichmann; Joachim Heinrich Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Tiffany L Blake-Lamb; Lindsey M Locks; Meghan E Perkins; Jennifer A Woo Baidal; Erika R Cheng; Elsie M Taveras Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Caroline Bauchart-Thevret; Barbara Stoll; Nancy M Benight; Oluyinka Olutoye; David Lazar; Douglas G Burrin Journal: J Nutr Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 4.798