Clinical evaluation of two different protein content formulas fed to full-term healthy infants: a randomized controlled trial

10Citations
Citations of this article
70Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A high early protein intake is associated with rapid postnatal weight gain and altered body composition. We aimed to evaluate the safety of a low-protein formula in healthy full-term infants. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. A total of 118 infants were randomized to receive two different protein content formulas (formula A or formula B (protein content: 1.2 vs. 1.7 g/100 mL, respectively)) for the first 4 months of life. Anthropometry and body composition by air displacement plethysmography were assessed at enrolment and at two and 4 months. The reference group comprised 50 healthy, exclusively breastfed, full-term infants. RESULTS: Weight gain (g/day) throughout the study was similar between the formula groups (32.5 ± 6.1 vs. 32.8 ± 6.8) and in the reference group (30.4 ± 5.4). The formula groups showed similar body composition but a different fat-free mass content from breastfed infants at two and 4 months. However, the formula A group showed a fat-free mass increase more similar to that of the breastfed infants. The occurrence of gastrointestinal symptoms or adverse events was similar between the formula groups. CONCLUSIONS: Feeding a low-protein content formula appears to be safe and to promote adequate growth, although determination of the long-term effect on body composition requires further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (trial number: NCT03035721 on January 18, 2017).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Liotto, N., Orsi, A., Menis, C., Piemontese, P., Morlacchi, L., Condello, C. C., … Mosca, F. (2018). Clinical evaluation of two different protein content formulas fed to full-term healthy infants: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatrics, 18(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1046-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free