NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -
Read Original Story

Special Infant Formula Might Help Shield Babies from Type 1 Diabetes


4 Star


Special Infant Formula Might Help Shield Babies from Type 1 Diabetes

Our Review Summary

There are many options when weaning an infant from breast milk.  The story discusses a recently published NEJM study which compared extensively hydrolyzed formula with regular infant formula in infants from 6-8 months, and followed these children for 10 years.  The more expensive hydrolyzed forumula was associated with fewer cases of  Type 1 diabetes antibodies in children who were at risk of developing the autoimmune disease.  However, the story notes that there is not definitive evidence that choosing regular cow’s milk infant formula will increase the risk of developing Type 1 diabetes, compared to other types of formula.


Why This Matters

Particularly important is the statement from the co-director of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts, that there are quite a few steps between preventing one of two diabetes-causing antibodies in at-risk children via a special formula, and how Type 1 diabetes manifests as an autoimmune disease.  Recommendations for infant formula have not changed as a result of this study and more evidence is needed to change clinical practice.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story notes that the extensively hydrolyzed formula is more expensive than standard formula; however, the authors should have indicated how much more expensive hydrolyzed formula is compared to regular formula. Monthly cost comparison of two formulas would have been appropriate as this may be a deciding factor for many families who choose not to breastfeed, or who are weaning.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


We’ve already penalized the story in “evidence” above for not giving the absolute risk reduction, so we won’t do it again here. The story reports on a study which showed about 50% fewer diabetes antibodies in at-risk children who were fed special hydrogized infant formula. But 50% of what?  This may or may not translate into fewer cases of childhood diabetes. If there are other side effects or harms associated with using hydrolyzed versus standard formula, they are not described.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?


There are no real “harms” with using formula, either cow’s milk formula or extensively hydrolyzed formula.  It appears the latter may be a better choice because there are fewer proteins broken down for digestion.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

What is missing here for the reader is a clear estimate of the absolute increase in risk of developing these antibodies. For example, if the risk for infants exposed to hydrolyzed is 1% and the risk for standard formula is 2% this may not be worth the cost. Whereas if the risk for those exposed to hydrolyzed is 5% and for those exposed to standard formula is 10% this may be worth it. Both of these represent a 50% increase in risk, but the absolute differences would have substantially different clinical implications

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story carefully explains the results of the study and is conservative about the role a formula may play in the prevention of Type 1 diabetes in susceptible children. it would have been helpful to indicate the prevalence of type 1 diabetes and how much the risk is increased if you have a first degree relative with type 1, which would have provided some perspective on the meaning of the relative increased risk for developing these auto-antibodies if an infant is exposed to standard formula.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


The story quotes several clinical experts who provide explanation of the results and put these into context with current formula recommendations.  Study authors are cited as well as clinical experts who feel the research is noteworthy, but should not change recommendations for a hydrolyzed formula to prevent Type 1 diabetes.   Affliations of all sources are listed in the story postscript.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


There are many options when weaning an infant from breast milk.  The story discusses the NEJM study which compared extensively hydrolyzed formula with regular infant formula.  While the more expensive hydrolyzed forumula was associated with fewer cases of Type 1 diabetes antibodies in at-risk children, the story notes that there is not definitive evidence that cow’s milk formula will increase the risk of Type 1 Diabetes compared to other types of formular or breast feeding.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Various infant formulas are available when weaning infants from breast milk, or when breastfeeding is not an option.  The story discusses research that compared regular infant formula with a type of extensively hydrolyzed formula that helps break down proteins during digestion.

This formula may not be available to some parents due to greater expense.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


It is known that breast feeding is preferable to formula, and that it may offer some protection against the development of Type 1 diabetes.  Formula is an option, particularly when breast milk is not available, and using formula will not harm an infant. However, formula may somehow trigger the development of autoantibodies as these proteins are broken down for digestion.  More research is needed, but this new information from a well-designed double-blinded RCT trial may guide recommendations and parents decisions in choosing a specialized infant formula that does not require breakdown of so many proteins during digestion.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


There is some thoughtful independent reporting and the story does not appear to rely on a news release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.