The Impact of Formula Choice for the Management of Pediatric Cow's Milk Allergy on the Occurrence of Other Allergic Manifestations: The Atopic March Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of different formulas on the occurrence of other atopic manifestations and the time of immune tolerance acquisition. STUDY DESIGN: In a 36-month prospective cohort study, the occurrence of other atopic manifestations (eczema, urticaria, asthma, and rhinoconjunctivitis) and the time of immune tolerance acquisition were comparatively evaluated in immunoglobulin E-mediated children with cow's milk allergy (CMA) treated with extensively hydrolyzed casein formula containing the probiotic L. rhamnosus GG (EHCF + LGG), rice hydrolyzed formula, soy formula, extensively hydrolyzed whey formula (EHWF), or amino acid-based formula. RESULTS: In total, 365 subjects were enrolled into the study, 73 per formula cohort. The incidence of atopic manifestations was 0.22 (Bonferroni-corrected 95% CI 0.09-0.34) in the EHCF + LGG cohort; 0.52 (0.37-0.67) in the rice hydrolyzed formula cohort; 0.58 (0.43-0.72) in the soy formula cohort; 0.51 (0.36-0.66) in the EHWF cohort; and 0.77 (0.64-0.89) in the amino acid-based formula cohort. The incidence of atopic manifestations in the rice hydrolyzed formula, soy formula, EHWF, and amino acid-based formula cohorts vs the EHCF + LGG cohort was always greater than the prespecified absolute difference of 0.25 at an alpha-level of 0.0125, with corresponding risk ratios of 2.37 (1.46-3.86, P < .001) for rice hydrolyzed formula vs EHCF + LGG; 2.62 (1.63-4.22, P < .001) for soy formula vs EHCF + LGG; 2.31 (1.42-3.77, P < .001) for EHWF vs EHCF + LGG; and 3.50 (2.23-5.49, P < .001) for amino acid-based formula vs EHCF + LGG. The 36-month immune tolerance acquisition rate was greater in the EHCF + LGG cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The use of EHCF + LGG for CMA treatment is associated with lower incidence of atopic manifestations and greater rate of immune tolerance acquisition.

Cow's Milk Substitutes for Children: Nutritional Aspects of Milk from Different Mammalian Species, Special Formula and Plant-Based Beverages.

Cow's milk and dairy are commonly consumed foods in the human diet and contribute to maintaining a healthy nutritional state, providing unique sources of energy, calcium, protein, and vitamins, especially during early childhood. Milk formula is usually made from cow's milk and represents the first food introduced into an infant's diet when breastfeeding is either not possible or insufficient to cover nutritional needs. Very recently, increased awareness of cow's milk protein allergy and intolerance, and higher preference to vegan dietary habits have influenced parents towards frequently choosing cows' milk substitutes for children, comprising other mammalian milk types and plant-based milk beverages. However, many of these milk alternatives do not necessarily address the nutritional requirements of infants and children. There is a strong need to promote awareness about qualitative and quantitative nutritional compositions of different milk formulas, in order to guide parents and medical providers selecting the best option for children. In this article, we sought to review the different compositions in terms of macronutrients and micronutrients of milk from different mammalian species, including special milk formulas indicated for cow's milk allergy, and of plant-based milk alternatives.

Flavor, relative palatability and components of cow's milk hydrolysed formulas and amino acid-based formula.

BACKGROUND: Both extensively hydrolysed formulas (eHF) and amino acid-based formula (AAFs) have been demonstrated effective for the treatment of CMA. However, in clinical practice, parents complain that hydrolysates are rejected by children due to their bad taste. Flavor of hydrolysed formulas has been poorly investigated although it affects the acceptance of milk over all the other attributes. The aim of the present study was to understand the factors underlying the unpleasant flavor of hydrolysed 25 formulas and amino acid-based formula. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty trained panelists performed a randomized-double-blind test with different milks. The smell, texture, taste and aftertaste of each formula were evaluated on a scale ranging from -2 (worst) to 2 (best). RESULTS: Formulas showed significant difference, as compared to cow's milk, in smell, texture, taste and aftertaste. Overall, whey eHFs were judged of better palatability than casein eHF and the AAFs (p < 0.05). Whey eHF showed significant differences among them for sensory attributes, especially for taste and aftertaste. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a broad range of flavor exists among the hydrolysed formulas. Further studies, adequately designed to investigate the relationship between milks' flavor and nutrient profile of hydrolysed formulas are warranted.