Double-blind comparative trial with 2 antiregurgitation formulae.

BACKGROUND AND AIM:

Many mothers consult physicians because of frequent infant regurgitation. Guidelines recommend reassurance and dietary treatment as first approaches. The aim of the present study was to test and compare the efficacy of 2 antiregurgitation formulae (ARF).

METHODS:

A prospective, double-blind, randomized cross-over trial was performed for a 1-month period in 115 formula-fed infants (ages 2 weeks-5 months) comparing 2 ARF (ARF-1: nonhydrolyzed protein, locust bean gum; ARF-2: specific whey hydrolysate, locust bean gum, specially treated starch). The primary endpoint was the incidence of regurgitation.

RESULTS:

At inclusion, mean age was 9.1 weeks; anthropometric parameters did not differ between the groups. According to the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean number of episodes of regurgitation decreased from 8.25 to 2.32 with ARF-1 and to 1.89 with ARF-2 (statistically significant difference between both ARF, P = 0.0091). The mean score of regurgitated volume decreased significantly more with ARF-2 than with ARF-1 (P = 0.0265). There was no significant difference in stool frequency and consistency between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

The efficacy of both ARF was demonstrated by the decreased number and volume of regurgitations. ARF-2 was statistically more effective than ARF-1. Comparative trials enable the selection of the best therapeutic option.