Nutrients, Vol. 17, Pages 162: Growth, Safety and Tolerance in Infants Fed Rice Protein Hydrolysate Formula: The GRITO Randomised Controlled Trial
Nutrients doi: 10.3390/nu17010162
Authors:
Anaïs Lemoine
Antonio Nieto-García
María Nieto-Cid
Beatriz Espín-Jaime
Ángel Mazón
Hocine Salhi
Dimitrios Salamouras
Nicolas Kalach
Roser de Castellar-Sansó
Jesús Delgado Ojeda
Víctor Manuel Navas-López
Background: Hydrolysed rice formula (HRF) is tolerated by >90% of children with cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA). However, concerns have been raised about potential suboptimal growth in infants fed HRF compared to those fed an extensively hydrolysed milk protein formula (eHF). Aims: To compare growth, safety and tolerance acquisition in infants with CMPA when fed HRF versus eHF. Methods: A multicentre prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge trial was conducted with infants with CMPA. The infants received either HRF or eHF over a 12-month follow-up period. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline over the study period in weight-for-length expressed as a Z-score. The secondary outcomes were other anthropometric measurements, tolerability and adverse events (AEs). Results: In total, 105 children were enrolled. The weight-for-length measurements were −0.01 (HRF) and −0.29 (eHF) at baseline and 0.29 and 0.05, respectively, at the last visit, with no significant between-group difference (p = 0.28; mixed-effects model). The Z-scores for other anthropometric variables indicated normal growth, with no significant between-group differences. In total, 29 potentially product-related AEs were reported (12 in the HRF group and 17 in the eHF group). A trend was observed toward a faster acquisition of tolerance in the HRF group (median age: 20.4 months) compared to the eHF group (16.3 months), but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Conclusions: HRF demonstrated appropriate growth, acquisition of tolerance and a good safety profile in infants with CMPA, with no significant differences versus eHF. HRF could be considered as an appropriate option in the management of CMPA.
Background: Hydrolysed rice formula (HRF) is tolerated by >90% of children with cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA). However, concerns have been raised about potential suboptimal growth in infants fed HRF compared to those fed an extensively hydrolysed milk protein formula (eHF). Aims: To compare growth, safety and tolerance acquisition in infants with CMPA when fed HRF versus eHF. Methods: A multicentre prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge trial was conducted with infants with CMPA. The infants received either HRF or eHF over a 12-month follow-up period. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline over the study period in weight-for-length expressed as a Z-score. The secondary outcomes were other anthropometric measurements, tolerability and adverse events (AEs). Results: In total, 105 children were enrolled. The weight-for-length measurements were −0.01 (HRF) and −0.29 (eHF) at baseline and 0.29 and 0.05, respectively, at the last visit, with no significant between-group difference (p = 0.28; mixed-effects model). The Z-scores for other anthropometric variables indicated normal growth, with no significant between-group differences. In total, 29 potentially product-related AEs were reported (12 in the HRF group and 17 in the eHF group). A trend was observed toward a faster acquisition of tolerance in the HRF group (median age: 20.4 months) compared to the eHF group (16.3 months), but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Conclusions: HRF demonstrated appropriate growth, acquisition of tolerance and a good safety profile in infants with CMPA, with no significant differences versus eHF. HRF could be considered as an appropriate option in the management of CMPA. Read More