The Effect of Goat-Milk-Based Infant Formulas on Growth and Safety Parameters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Nutrients Vol. 15; no. 9; p. 2110
• Main Authors: Jankiewicz, Mateusz, van Lee, Linde, Biesheuvel, Mirthe, Brouwer-Brolsma, Elske M, van der Zee, Lucie, Szajewska, Hania
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 27-04-2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Animals; Babies; Baby foods; Bias; Breastfeeding & lactation; Cattle; children; Collaboration; Comparative analysis; Cow's milk; Data collection; Databases, Factual; feeding; Female; Glia Maturation Factor; goat; Goats; Heterogeneity; infant; Infant Formula; Infant formulas; Infants; Intervention; Meta-analysis; Milk; Nutrition; Risk management; Systematic Review; nutrition; children; infant formula; feeding; growth; goat; infant
• ISSN: 2072-6643; 2072-6643
• DOI: 10.3390/nu15092110

Goat-milk-based infant formulas (GMFs) are now available in several countries, having been approved by authorities. We systematically evaluated the effects of GMF compared with cow-milk-based formula (CMF) on infant growth and safety parameters. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched (December 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (ROB-2). Heterogeneity was quantified by
. Four RCTs involving a total of 670 infants were identified. All trials revealed some concern in ROB-2. Furthermore, all of the included studies were funded by the industry. Compared with infants fed CMF, those fed GMF showed similar growth in sex- and age-adjusted
-scores for weight (mean difference, MD, 0.21 [95% confidence interval, CI, -0.16 to 0.58],
= 56%), length (MD 0.02, [95% CI -0.29 to 0.33],
= 24%), and head circumference (MD 0.12, 95% [CI -0.19 to 0.43],
= 2%). Stool frequency was similar among the groups. Due to differences in the reporting of stool consistency, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Adverse effects (serious or any) were similar in both groups. These findings provide reassurance that GMFs compared with CMFs are safe and well tolerated.