Effect of extensively hydrolyzed casein vs. conventional formula on the risk of asthma and allergies: The TRIGR randomized clinical trial.

Background: The role of hydrolyzed infant formulas in the prevention of asthma and allergies remains inconsistent. We tested whether extensively hydrolyzed casein formula compared to conventional cow's milk–based formula prevented asthma, allergic rhinitis, or atopic eczema. Methods: In the randomized double‐blind Trial to Reduce IDDM in Genetically at Risk (TRIGR), comparing extensively hydrolyzed to standard cow's milk–based infant formula during the first 6‐8 months of life, we assessed the effect of the intervention on the incidence of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and eczema when the children were 9‐ to 11‐years old. The asthma, allergic rhinitis, and eczema occurrence was assessed using online standardized and validated ISAAC questionnaire. Of the 1106 children who participated in this Ancillary study, 560 had been randomized to the experimental (extensively hydrolyzed casein formula) and 546 to the control arm (cow's milk–based formula). Results: The risk of persistent asthma, allergic rhinitis, or atopic eczema did not differ by treatment, the hazard ratios (95% CI) being 1.00 (0.66‐1.52), 0.95 (0.66‐1.38), and 0.89 (0.70‐1.15), respectively, in the intention‐to‐treat analysis. Neither were there any differences in the per‐protocol analysis. Conclusions: Extensively hydrolyzed casein formula did not protect from asthma, rhinitis, or eczema in this population carrying genetic risk for type 1 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]