METHODS: A systematic review and Delphi consensus panel (consisting of eight8 international pediatric allergists and gastroenterologists) was conducted to evaluate evidence supporting growth, tolerability, and effectiveness of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants.
RESULTS: None of the studies reviewed identified potential harm of pHF use compared with CMP in non-exclusively breastfed infants. There was an expert consensus that pHF use is likely as safe as intact CMP formula, given studies suggesting these have comparable nutritional parameters. No high-quality studies were identified evaluating the use of pHF to prevent allergic disease in non-exclusively breastfed infants who are not at risk for allergic disease (e.g., lacking a parental history of allergy). Limited data suggest that pHF use in non-exclusively breastfed infants may be associated with improved gastric emptying, decreased colic incidence, and other common functional gastrointestinal symptoms compared with CMP. However, because the data are of insufficient quality, the findings from these studies have to be taken with caution. No studies were identified that directly compared the different types of pHF, but there was an expert consensus that growth, allergenicity, tolerability, effectiveness, and clinical role among such pHF products may differ.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist evaluating routine use of pHFs in non-exclusively breastfed infants, with no contraindications identified in the systematic review. An expert consensus considers pHFs for which data were available to be as safe as CMP formula as growth is normal. The preventive effect on allergy of pHF in infants who are not at risk for allergic disease has been poorly studied. Cost of pHF versus starter formula with intact protein differs from country to country. However, further studies in larger populations are needed to clinically confirm the benefits of routine use of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants. These studies should also address potential consumer preference bias.
METHODS: Item selection for the FFQ was based on explained variation and contribution to intake of energy and 24 nutrients. For validation, the FFQ was completed by 135 participants (25-70 y of age) of the Nutrition Questionnaires plus study. Per person, on average 2.8 (range 1-5) telephone-based 24-h dietary recalls (24HRs), two 24-h urinary samples, and one blood sample were available. Validity of 54 nutrients and 22 food groups was assessed by ranking agreement, correlation coefficients, attenuation factors, and ultimately deattenuated correlation coefficients (validity coefficients).
RESULTS: Median correlation coefficients for energy and macronutrients, micronutrients, and food groups were 0.45, 0.36, and 0.38, respectively. Median deattenuated correlation coefficients were 0.53 for energy and macronutrients, 0.45 for micronutrients, and 0.64 for food groups, being >0.50 for 18 of 22 macronutrients, 16 of 30 micronutrients and >0.50 for 17 of 22 food groups. The FFQ underestimated protein and potassium intake compared with 24-h urinary nitrogen and potassium excretion by -18% and -2%, respectively. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.50 and 0.55 for (fatty) fish intake and plasma eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, and from 0.26 to 0.42 between fruit and vegetable intake and plasma carotenoids.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the validity of the 253-item Maastricht FFQ was satisfactory. The comprehensiveness of this FFQ make it well suited for use in The Maastricht Study and similar populations.