Evaluatıon of the taste, smell, and appearance of formulas used ın the management of cow’s mılk proteın allergy: A multıcenter, prospectıve, sıngle-blınd, cross-sectıonal observatıonal study (CONTEST-2)
Main Article Content
Keywords
cow’s milk protein allergy, hypoallergenic formulas, palatability, sensory evaluation, infants
Abstract
The main drawback of hypoallergenic formulas for cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA) is their low palatability. This study aims to examine the decisions made by mothers of infants diagnosed with CMPA and physicians regarding the taste of extensively hydrolyzed formulas (eHFs), amino acid-based formulas (AAFs), and rice-based formulas. This single-blind, multicenter study was conducted in nine pediatric allergy centers across Türkiye and included 181 pediatricians and 137 mothers of children with CMPA. Seven substitution formulas without added sweeteners or additional flavorings available on the market were tested: Two AAFs (Neocate-Numil®, Alfamino-Nestlé®), one AAF with synbiotics (Pregomin Syneo-Numil®), one AAF specifically designed to meet the nutritional and lifestyle needs of children over 1 year of age (Neocate Junior-Numil®), one synbiotic eHF (Aptamil Pepti Syneo-Numil®), and two rice protein-based formulas (Evolvia RP1-Montero® and Evolvia RP2-Montero®). A sensory evaluation was conducted using a single-blind protocol, following the methodology previously applied in the CONTEST-1 study. Neocate Junior-Numil® was the most preferred product in terms of taste, smell, and appearance, as rated by both mothers and physicians. It was the most preferred formula by both mothers (49.6%) and physicians (62.4%) in terms of taste. Aptamil Pepti Syneo-Numil® ranked second (32.8% for mothers, 42.0% for physicians), followed by Evolvia RP2-Montero® (23.4%) for mothers and Alfamino-Nestle® (22.1%) for physicians. The fact that both mothers and physicians most frequently preferred Neocate Junior-Numil® suggests that sensory characteristics of formulas used in CMPA management—such as taste, smell, and appearance—may play a decisive role in treatment adherence. This finding highlights the importance of considering not only nutritional adequacy but also acceptability when selecting a formula.
References
2 Sorensen K, Cawood AL, Gibson GR, Cooke LH, Stratton RJ. Amino acid formula containing synbiotics in infants with cow’s milk protein allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13(3):935. 10.3390/nu13030935
3 Pedrosa M, Pascual CY, Larco JI, Esteban MM. Palatability of hydrolysates and Other substitution formulas for cow’s milk-allergic children: A comparative study of taste, smell, and texture evaluated by healthy volunteers. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2006;16(6):351–6.
4 Miraglia Del Giudice M, D’Auria E, Peroni D, Palazzo S, Radaelli G, Comberiati P, et al. Flavor, relative palatability and components of cow’s milk hydrolysed formulas and amino acid-based formula. Ital J Pediatr. 2015;41:42. 10.1186/s13052-015-0141-7
5 Maslin K, Fox AT, Chambault M, Meyer R. Palatability of hypoallergenic formulas for cow’s milk allergy and healthcare professional recommendation. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2018;29(8):857–62. 10.1111/pai.12979
6 Altintas DU, Turktas I, Arga M, Cokugras HC, Civelek E, Keskin O, et al. Comparison of Tastes of Available Nutritional integrated or non-integrated formulas for infants older than 1 year of age with cow’s milk allergy: A multicenter, prospective, single blind, cross-sectional observational clinical study (CONTEST Study). Allergol Immunopathol. 2022;50(4):97–104. 10.15586/aei.v50i4.520.eCollection2022
7 de Jong NW, Sprikkelman AB, Oude Elberink HN, Arends NJ, Vlieg-Boerstra BJ. Blinded sensory evaluation of extensively hydrolyzed formulas and amino acid formulas. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2014;113(2):235–6. 10.1016/j.anai.2014.05.027
8 Epifanio M, Mendes de Abreu CL, Barros K, Oviedo J, Covic A, Ormenese R da CSC. Palatability and sensory perception of infant formulas for the treatment of cow’s milk allergy according to Brazilian mothers. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 2020;25(1):19108–13. 10.26717/BJSTR.2020.25.004146
9 Hoppu U, Knaapila A, Laaksonen O, Sandell M. Genetic basis of flavor sensitivity and food preferences. In: Etievant P, Guichard E, Salles C, Voilley A, editors. Chapter 9. Flavor: From food to behaviors, wellbeing and health. 1st ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. pp. 203–27. 10.1016/B978-0-08-100295-7.00010-4
10 Beauchamp GK, Mennella JA. Early flavor learning and its impact on later feeding behavior. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2009;48(1): 25–30. 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31819774a5
11 Ventura AK, Worobey J. Early influences on the development of food preferences. Curr Biol. 2013;23(9):401–8. 10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.037
12 Trachootham D, Satoh-Kuriwada S, Lam-Ubol A, Promkam C, Chotechuang N, Sasano T, et al. Differences in taste perception and spicy preference: A Thai–Japanese cross-cultural study. Chem Senses. 2017;43(1):65–74. 10.1093/chemse/bjx071
13 Aoki K, Mori K, Iijima S, Sakon M, Matsuura N, Kobayashi T, et al. Association between genetic variation in the TAS2R38 bitter taste receptor and propylthiouracil bitter taste thresholds among adults living in Japan using the modified 2AFC procedure with the Quest method. Nutrients. 2023;15(10):2415. 10.3390/nu15102415
14 Trecca EMC, Fortunato F, Gelardi M, Petrone P, Cassano M. Development of a questionnaire to investigate socio-cultural differences in the perception of smell, taste and flavour. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2021;41(4):336–47. 10.14639/0392-100X-N0766
15 Forestell CA, Mennella JA. The ontogeny of taste perception and preference throughout childhood. In: Doty RL, editor. Handbook of olfaction and gustation. 3rd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2015. pp. 795–828.
16 Mellor DJ. Preparing for life after birth: Introducing the concepts of intrauterine and extrauterine sensory entrainment in mammalian young. Animals (Basel ). 2019;9(10):826. 10.3390/ani9100826
17 Schaal B. Prenatal and postnatal human olfactory development: Influences on cognition and behavior. In: Doty RL, editor. Handbook of olfaction and gustation. 2nd ed. New York: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2003. pp. 305–36.
18 Forestell CA. Flavor perception and preference development in human infants. Ann Nutr Metab. 2017;70 Suppl 3:17–25. 10.1159/000478759
19 Beauchamp GK, Mennella JA. Flavor perception in human infants: Development and functional significance. Digestion, 2011;83 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):1–6. 10.1159/000323397
20 Nolte DL, Provenza FD. Food preferences in lambs after exposure to flavors in milk. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1992;32:381–9. 10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80030-9
21 Galloway AT, Lee Y, Birch LL. Predictors and consequences of food neophobia and pickiness in young girls. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(6):692–8. 10.1053/jada.2003.50134
22 Mennella JA, Beauchamp GK. Developmental changes in the infants’ acceptance of protein-hydrolysate formula and its relation to mothers’ eating habits. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1996;17:386–91. 10.1097/00004703-199612000-00003
23 Mennella JA, Beauchamp GK. Development and bad taste. Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol. 1998;12:161–3. 10.1089/pai.1998.12.161
24 Darlow B, Fullen BM, Dean S, Hurley DA, Baxter GD, Dowell A. The association between health care professional attitudes and beliefs and the attitudes and beliefs, clinical management, and outcomes of patients with low back pain: A systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(1):3–17. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.06.006
25 Bognanni A, Firmino RT, Arasi S, Chu DK, Chu AWL, Waffenschmidt S, et al. World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow’s Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guideline update–XI–Milk supplement/replacement formulas for infants and toddlers with CMA: Systematic review. World Allergy Organ J. 2024;17(9):100947. 10.1016/j.waojou.2024.100947
