High protein intake in formula-fed term infants: Abridged republication of the cochrane systematic review

IF 2.9 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS

Clinical nutrition ESPEN Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1016/j.clnesp.2025.03.038

Alejandro G. Gonzalez-Garay , Aurora E. Serralde-Zúñiga , Liliana Velasco Hidalgo , Mathy Victoria Alonso Ocaña , Fernando Estrada-Moya , Isabel Medina Vera

{"title":"High protein intake in formula-fed term infants: Abridged republication of the cochrane systematic review","authors":"Alejandro G. Gonzalez-Garay , Aurora E. Serralde-Zúñiga , Liliana Velasco Hidalgo , Mathy Victoria Alonso Ocaña , Fernando Estrada-Moya , Isabel Medina Vera","doi":"10.1016/j.clnesp.2025.03.038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Many infants receive formulas to support growth, some of which contain high protein (≥2.5 g per 100 kcal) to increase weight gain. The risk-benefit of these formulas is unclear. This review evaluated high-protein formula (HPF) versus standard-protein formula (SPF) and low-protein formula (LPF) in healthy, formula-fed term infants to prevent undernutrition, obesity, and adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and other databases without language restrictions. Cochrane Collaboration tool and GRADE instrument assessed the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials and certainty of their evidence. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, calculating risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) for the outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We included 11 trials (1185 infants) and found very low-certainty evidence that HPF versus SPF had little or no effect on underweight, stunting, and wasting (MD weight-for-age z-score 0.05 standard deviations (SDs), 95 % CI −0.09 to 0.19; P = 0.51; height-for-age 0.15 SDs, 95 % CI −0.05 to 0.35; P = 0.14). HPF versus SPF had little or no effect on overweight or obesity at five years (RR 1.26, 95 % CI 0.63 to 2.51; P = 0.51). Very low-certainty evidence indicated SPF versus LPF had little or no effect on underweight, stunting, and wasting. HPF versus SPF or LPF may have little or no effect on adverse effects in the first year.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We are unsure if HPF versus SPF influences undernutrition or obesity, and there may be little difference in the risk of adverse effects between formulas. Ongoing studies may change these conclusions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10352,"journal":{"name":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","volume":"67 ","pages":"Pages 476-492"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405457725001299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Many infants receive formulas to support growth, some of which contain high protein (≥2.5 g per 100 kcal) to increase weight gain. The risk-benefit of these formulas is unclear. This review evaluated high-protein formula (HPF) versus standard-protein formula (SPF) and low-protein formula (LPF) in healthy, formula-fed term infants to prevent undernutrition, obesity, and adverse events.

Methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and other databases without language restrictions. Cochrane Collaboration tool and GRADE instrument assessed the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials and certainty of their evidence. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, calculating risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) for the outcomes.

Results

We included 11 trials (1185 infants) and found very low-certainty evidence that HPF versus SPF had little or no effect on underweight, stunting, and wasting (MD weight-for-age z-score 0.05 standard deviations (SDs), 95 % CI −0.09 to 0.19; P = 0.51; height-for-age 0.15 SDs, 95 % CI −0.05 to 0.35; P = 0.14). HPF versus SPF had little or no effect on overweight or obesity at five years (RR 1.26, 95 % CI 0.63 to 2.51; P = 0.51). Very low-certainty evidence indicated SPF versus LPF had little or no effect on underweight, stunting, and wasting. HPF versus SPF or LPF may have little or no effect on adverse effects in the first year.

Conclusions

We are unsure if HPF versus SPF influences undernutrition or obesity, and there may be little difference in the risk of adverse effects between formulas. Ongoing studies may change these conclusions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

配方奶喂养足月婴儿的高蛋白摄入：科克伦系统综述》节选再版。

背景：许多婴儿食用配方奶粉以支持生长，其中一些含有高蛋白（≥2.5 g / 100 kcal）以增加体重。这些公式的风险收益尚不清楚。本综述评估了高蛋白配方奶粉（HPF）与标准蛋白配方奶粉（SPF）和低蛋白配方奶粉（LPF）在健康配方奶粉喂养的足月婴儿中预防营养不良、肥胖和不良事件的效果。方法：检索CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase等无语言限制的数据库。Cochrane协作工具和GRADE工具评估了随机对照试验的偏倚风险及其证据的确定性。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析，以95%置信区间（95% CI）计算结果的风险比（RR）和平均差异（MD）。结果：我们纳入了11项试验（1185名婴儿），发现非常低确定性的证据表明，高强度防晒与高强度防晒对体重不足、发育迟缓和消瘦的影响很小或没有影响(MD体重与年龄比值z-score 0.05标准差，95% CI -0.09至0.19；P = 0.51；身高年龄比0.15 SDs, 95% CI -0.05 ~ 0.35；P = 0.14)。在5年时，高强度防晒对超重或肥胖的影响很小或没有影响(RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63至2.51；P = 0.51)。非常低确定性的证据表明，SPF与LPF相比，对体重不足、发育迟缓和消瘦的影响很小或没有影响。与SPF或LPF相比，HPF在第一年的不良反应可能很少或没有影响。结论：我们不确定HPF和SPF是否会影响营养不良或肥胖，两种配方奶粉的不良反应风险可能没有什么不同。正在进行的研究可能会改变这些结论。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical nutrition ESPEN NUTRITION & DIETETICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

3.30%

发文量

512

期刊介绍： Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is an electronic-only journal and is an official publication of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). Nutrition and nutritional care have gained wide clinical and scientific interest during the past decades. The increasing knowledge of metabolic disturbances and nutritional assessment in chronic and acute diseases has stimulated rapid advances in design, development and clinical application of nutritional support. The aims of ESPEN are to encourage the rapid diffusion of knowledge and its application in the field of clinical nutrition and metabolism. Published bimonthly, Clinical Nutrition ESPEN focuses on publishing articles on the relationship between nutrition and disease in the setting of basic science and clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is available to all members of ESPEN and to all subscribers of Clinical Nutrition.