TY - JOUR
T1 - The Effect of Goat-Milk-Based Infant Formulas on Growth and Safety Parameters
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
AU - Jankiewicz, Mateusz
AU - van Lee, Linde
AU - Biesheuvel, Mirthe
AU - Brouwer-Brolsma, Elske M.
AU - van der Zee, Lucie
AU - Szajewska, Hania
PY - 2023/4/27
Y1 - 2023/4/27
N2 - Goat-milk-based infant formulas (GMFs) are now available in several countries, having been approved by authorities. We systematically evaluated the effects of GMF compared with cow-milk-based formula (CMF) on infant growth and safety parameters. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched (December 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (ROB-2). Heterogeneity was quantified by I2. Four RCTs involving a total of 670 infants were identified. All trials revealed some concern in ROB-2. Furthermore, all of the included studies were funded by the industry. Compared with infants fed CMF, those fed GMF showed similar growth in sex- and age-adjusted z-scores for weight (mean difference, MD, 0.21 [95% confidence interval, CI, −0.16 to 0.58], I2 = 56%), length (MD 0.02, [95% CI −0.29 to 0.33], I2 = 24%), and head circumference (MD 0.12, 95% [CI −0.19 to 0.43], I2 = 2%). Stool frequency was similar among the groups. Due to differences in the reporting of stool consistency, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Adverse effects (serious or any) were similar in both groups. These findings provide reassurance that GMFs compared with CMFs are safe and well tolerated.
AB - Goat-milk-based infant formulas (GMFs) are now available in several countries, having been approved by authorities. We systematically evaluated the effects of GMF compared with cow-milk-based formula (CMF) on infant growth and safety parameters. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched (December 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (ROB-2). Heterogeneity was quantified by I2. Four RCTs involving a total of 670 infants were identified. All trials revealed some concern in ROB-2. Furthermore, all of the included studies were funded by the industry. Compared with infants fed CMF, those fed GMF showed similar growth in sex- and age-adjusted z-scores for weight (mean difference, MD, 0.21 [95% confidence interval, CI, −0.16 to 0.58], I2 = 56%), length (MD 0.02, [95% CI −0.29 to 0.33], I2 = 24%), and head circumference (MD 0.12, 95% [CI −0.19 to 0.43], I2 = 2%). Stool frequency was similar among the groups. Due to differences in the reporting of stool consistency, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Adverse effects (serious or any) were similar in both groups. These findings provide reassurance that GMFs compared with CMFs are safe and well tolerated.
KW - children
KW - feeding
KW - goat
KW - growth
KW - infant
KW - infant formula
KW - nutrition
U2 - 10.3390/nu15092110
DO - 10.3390/nu15092110
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85159129322
SN - 2072-6643
VL - 15
JO - Nutrients
JF - Nutrients
IS - 9
M1 - 2110
ER -