Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Systematic review with meta analysis
Study finds little impact of hydrolysed formula on risk of allergic disease, but study methods may limit conclusions and generalisability
  1. Yvan Vandenplas
  1. Department of Pediatrics, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to : Dr Yvan Vandenplas, Department of Pediatrics, UZ Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium; Yvan.vandenplas{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Commentary on: OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text.


Several meta-analyses, including a Cochrane analysis, performed previously on the same topic, came to the conclusion that ‘hydrolyzed formula is recommended in the first 4–6 months of life for the primary prevention of allergic diseases’.1–3 In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that a particular partial whey hydrolysate could reduce the risk of eczema in high-risk infants. Boyle and colleagues, however, come to a different conclusion, and state that the current guidelines recommending hydrolysates to prevent allergic disease in high-risk infants are not supported.


This meta-analysis included data from 37 intervention trials including over 19 000 participants. The review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidance. Heterogeneity and publication …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests YV has participated as a clinical investigator and/or advisory board member and/or consultant and/or speaker for Abbott Nutrition, Aspen, Biogaia, Biocodex, Danone, Hero, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Merck, Orafti, Phacobel, Rontis, Sari Husada, United Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth and Yakult.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.