MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4307888699 · doi:10.1101/2022.10.27.22281417

Effects of a novel infant formula on weight gain and body composition of infants: The INNOVA 2020 study

2022· preprint· en· W4307888699 sur OpenAlexaff
Julio Plaza‐Díaz, Francisco Javier Ruiz‐Ojeda, Javier Morales, Ana Isabel Cristina de la Torre, Antonio García-García, Carlos Nuñez de Prado, Cristóbal Coronel, Cyntia Crespo, Eduardo Ortega, Esther Marín-Pérez, Fernando Ferrerira, Gema García-Ron, Ignacio Galicia, María Teresa Santos-García-Cuéllar, M Moroto, Paola Ruiz, Raquel Martín, Susana Viver-Gómez, Ángel Gil

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Établissements canadiensChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBreastfeedingInfant formulaMedicineTolerabilityPediatricsBreast milkPopulationDiarrheaBifidobacterium animalisBreast feedingWeight gainOtitisRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectInternal medicineBody weightBifidobacteriumFood scienceSurgeryBiologyEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Breastmilk is the most appropriate food for infants and exclusive breastfeeding is highly recommended for the first six months of life to promote adequate growth and development and lower infant morbidity and mortality. Among the best-documented benefits of breastfeeding is the reduced risk of disease and infections such as pneumonia, diarrhea and acute otitis media. Nonetheless, there are situations in which the infant cannot be breastfed; therefore, it is essential to use an appropriately designed infant formula. As current infant formulas incorporate novel ingredients to partly mimic the composition of human milk, the safety and suitability of each specific infant formula should be tested by clinical evaluation in the target population. Here, we report the results of a multicenter, randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial that aimed to evaluate a novel starting formula on weight gain and body composition of infants up to 6 and 12 months (INNOVA 2020 study), as well as safety and tolerability. The complete protocol of this study has been previously issued. Study design 210 infants (70/group) were enrolled in the study, and completed the intervention until 12 months of age. For the intervention period, infants were divided into three groups: group 1 received the formula 1 (Nutribén® Innova1 or INN), with a lower amount of protein, and enriched in α-lactalbumin protein, and with a double amount of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)/ arachidonic acid (ARA) than the standard formula; it also contained a thermally inactivated postbiotic ( Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis , BPL1™ HT). Group 2 received the standard formula or formula 2 (Nutriben® Natal or STD) and the third group was exclusively breastfed for exploratory analysis and used as a reference (BFD group). During the study, visits were made at 21 days, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months of age, with ± 3 days for the visit at 21 days of age, ± 1 week for the visit at 2 months, and ± 2 weeks for the others. During the first 6 months of the study, the infants were only supplied with the starting formula or natural breastfeeding. Results The primary outcome, weight gain, was higher in both formula groups than in the BFD group at 6 and 12 months, whereas no differences were found between STD and INN groups neither at 6 nor at 12 months. Likewise, BMI was higher in infants fed the two formulas compared with the BFD group. Regarding body composition, length, head circumference and tricipital/subscapular skinfolds were alike between groups. The INN formula was considered safe as weight gain and body composition were within the normal limits, according to WHO standards. The BFD group exhibited more liquid consistency in the stools compared to both formula groups. All groups showed similar digestive tolerance and infant behavior. However, a higher frequency of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was reported by the STD formula group (291), followed by the INN formula (282) and the BFD groups (227). There were fewer respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders among BFD children. Additionally, infants receiving the INN formula experienced significantly fewer general disorders and disturbances than those receiving the STD formula. Indeed, atopic dermatitis, bronchitis, and bronchiolitis were significantly more prevalent among infants who were fed the STD formula compared to those fed INN formula or breastfed. To evaluate whether there are significant differences between formula treatments, beyond growth parameters, it would seem necessary to examine more precise health biomarkers and to carry out long-term longitudinal studies. Clinical Trial Registration The trial was registered with Clinicaltrial.gov ( NCT05303077 ) on March 31, 2022, and lastly updated on April 7, 2022.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxivMême sujetBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesTravaux en français237 207