Back

Prevention of Atopic Diseases with the Use of Hypoallergenic Infant Formula: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Vind, H. M.; Rasmussen, M. A.; Schoos, A.-M. M.

2026-01-28 allergy and immunology
10.64898/2026.01.26.26344870 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAtopic diseases are estimated to affect 30-40% of the global population. However, the potential protective effect of hypoallergenic infant formula against conditions such as atopic dermatitis (AD), cows milk protein allergy (CMPA), and asthma remains uncertain. ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hypoallergenic formula for atopic disease prevention in high-risk infants. The primary outcome was AD and secondary outcomes were CMPA and asthma. MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020. RCTs involving high-risk infants were identified through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Exclusion criteria included interventions not initiated at birth, enrolment of sick infants, and non-RCTs. Pooled Relative Risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. ResultsWe included 9 RCTs that enrolled high-risk infants. The meta-analysis found a borderline significant protective effects of AD (RR=0.78 [0.59-1.03], p=0.059; I2=46.5%), a significant protective effect of hypoallergenic formula in prevention of CMPA (RR=0.51 [0.27-0.97], p=0.0228; I2=37.3%), and no significant risk reduction for asthma (RR=0.78 [0.51-1.20], p=0.059; I2=37.5%). ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis found no statistically significant protective effect of hypoallergenic formula for AD or asthma, though a non-significant trend toward risk reduction was observed. A significant risk reduction was seen for CMPA (RR{approx}0.5), although not all diagnoses were confirmed by oral food challenge. These findings suggest potential patient-specific benefits, but larger, well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm them.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.