Exl B M, Deland U, Secretin M C, Preysch U, Wall M, Shmerling D H
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Nestlé Suisse SA, Vevey, Switzerland.
Eur J Nutr. 2000 Aug;39(4):145-56. doi: 10.1007/s003940070018.
An allergen-reduced dietary intervention programme with strict dietary requirements was implemented over the first four months of life in an unselected population-based infant cohort and compared to a non-intervention cohort (the ZUFF study). Recommendations for the dietary programme in the intervention cohort were extended, but not strictly implemented, until the end of month six. The intervention was based on breastfeeding, a moderate whey hydrolysate formula (pHF), and delayed introduction of weaning foods with a high allergenicity. This study was a prospective, controlled, and unblinded study, the first to assess the effects of an allergen-reduced, pHF-based early nutritional programme in a broad unselected infant population. Because overall healthy development of the infant is a major objective of any nutritional programme, the study evaluated the effects of the dietary intervention on infant growth and general health status rather than specific allergic manifestations. Part I of this paper gave results for nutritional behaviour only, and Part II gives results for growth and general health status during the intervention period through the sixth month of life.
Assignment of study infants was to demographically comparable intervention (Z) or control (FF) cohorts according to place of birth. In the intervention cohort (Z=564), the recommended dietary regimen was breastfeeding and--if exclusive breastfeeding was not possible--supplementation with a moderately hydrolysed, allergen-reduced infant formula (pHF). Weaning foods were delayed until four months of age or later in case of weaning foods with high allergenicity. In the control cohort (FF=566), there was no specific intervention. Imbalances between cohorts in confounding (adjuvant) factors that could influence health-related outcomes were integrated as covariates into the logistic regression of the main analyses. Growth parameters included weight, length, head circumference, BMI, and Z scores (SDS). General health status was assessed by clinically significant findings in gastrointestinal, respiratory, or skin symptoms.
Growth at 6 weeks and at 3 and 6 months was similar for Z and FF. Significantly fewer Z than FF infants had clinically noteworthy health findings at 3 months (Z=27% versus FF=37%, odds ratio=0.63, CI=0.48-0.82) and 6 months (Z=33% versus FF=49%, odds ratio=0.51, CI= 0.40-0.66). This corresponds to a 30 % reduction in overall health concerns at 6 months for the intervention cohort. At 3 and 6 months, differences between cohorts in most measures of general health status were strongly influenced by a lower incidence of skin symptoms in the Z cohort. Within FF, there were fewer exclusively breastfed (eBF) infants with health problems at 3 months compared with those who were partially (pBF) or non-breastfed (nBF) (eBF=31%, pBF=40%, nBF=39%, p< 0.05). In contrast, in the Z intervention cohort, the number of infants with health concerns was similar for exclusively breastfed infants and for those in whom mother's milk was supplemented or replaced by pHF (eBF=29%, pBF=25%, nBF=26%, ns). In a subanalysis of overall health findings in infants without a family risk of allergies, there were again significantly fewer Z than FF infants with any health or any skin problem.
An allergen-reduced dietary recommendation that includes a moderate whey hydrolysate infant formula (pHF) has no negative effects on growth parameters up to 6 months of life in an infant population unselected for atopic risk. The dietary intervention produced improvements in general health status when compared with a control cohort that received infant formula with unhydrolysed proteins (IF), and high allergenic weaning foods at an earlier age. The difference between cohorts was principally due to fewer adverse skin findings. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
在一个未经过筛选的基于人群的婴儿队列中,于出生后的前四个月实施了一项具有严格饮食要求的低变应原饮食干预计划,并与一个非干预队列(ZUFF研究)进行比较。在干预队列中,饮食计划的建议一直延长到第六个月末,但未严格执行。该干预基于母乳喂养、适度的乳清水解配方奶粉(pHF)以及延迟引入高致敏性的断奶食品。本研究是一项前瞻性、对照且非盲法的研究,首次在广泛的未经过筛选的婴儿人群中评估基于pHF的低变应原早期营养计划的效果。由于婴儿的整体健康发育是任何营养计划的主要目标,因此该研究评估了饮食干预对婴儿生长和一般健康状况的影响,而非特定的过敏表现。本文的第一部分仅给出了营养行为的结果,第二部分给出了干预期间直至出生后第六个月的生长和一般健康状况的结果。
根据出生地点将研究婴儿分配到人口统计学特征可比的干预组(Z)或对照组(FF)。在干预队列(Z = 564)中,推荐的饮食方案是母乳喂养,并且如果无法进行纯母乳喂养,则补充适度水解、低变应原的婴儿配方奶粉(pHF)。对于高致敏性的断奶食品,延迟至四个月龄或更晚引入。在对照组(FF = 566)中,未进行特定干预。将可能影响健康相关结果的混杂(辅助)因素在队列间的不平衡作为协变量纳入主要分析的逻辑回归中。生长参数包括体重、身长、头围、BMI和Z评分(SDS)。通过胃肠道、呼吸道或皮肤症状的临床显著发现评估一般健康状况。
Z组和FF组在6周、3个月和6个月时的生长情况相似。在3个月时(Z组 = 27%,FF组 = 37%,优势比 = 0.63,CI = 0.48 - 0.82)和6个月时(Z组 = 33%,FF组 = 49%,优势比 = 0.51,CI = 0.40 - 0.66),Z组中临床上值得注意的健康发现的婴儿明显少于FF组。这相当于干预队列在6个月时总体健康问题减少了30%。在3个月和6个月时,Z组皮肤症状发生率较低,这在很大程度上影响了两组在大多数一般健康状况指标上的差异。在FF组中,3个月时纯母乳喂养(eBF)的有健康问题的婴儿少于部分母乳喂养(pBF)或非母乳喂养(nBF)的婴儿(eBF = 31%;pBF = 40%;nBF = 39%;p < 0.05)。相比之下,在Z干预队列中,纯母乳喂养婴儿以及母乳补充或被pHF替代的婴儿中有健康问题的婴儿数量相似(eBF = 29%;pBF = 25%;nBF = 26%;无显著差异)。在对无家族过敏风险婴儿的总体健康发现进行的亚分析中,Z组有任何健康或皮肤问题的婴儿再次明显少于FF组。
对于未经过特应性风险筛选的婴儿人群而言,包含适度乳清水解婴儿配方奶粉(pHF)的低变应原饮食建议对6个月龄以内的生长参数没有负面影响。与接受未水解蛋白婴儿配方奶粉(IF)和较早引入高致敏性断奶食品的对照组相比,饮食干预改善了一般健康状况。两组之间的差异主要是由于不良皮肤发现较少。(摘要截选)