Safety and tolerance of infant formulas containing probiotics: a multicenter, randomised, controlled trial in healthy term infants

Several studies have documented the safety and tolerance of probiotics in infants, however, most studies have been conducted with supplements. This randomised, double-blind, multicenter trial evaluated growth of healthy term infants fed infant formula supplemented with Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM17938 (L. reuteri; n = 92) or Bifidobacterium lactis CNCM I-3446 (B. lactis; n = 92) or the same formula without probiotics ( n = 95). Mixed feeding with breast milk was allowed in each group. Exclusively breastfed infants ( n = 100) were included for reference. Non-inferiority in weight gain (margin -3 g/day) from enrolment to age 6 months was the primary outcome. Length, BMI, head circumference, and WHO z-scores from birth to 12 months were assessed, as was digestive tolerance, and, in a subset of infants, urinary D-lactate parameters and abundance of key bacteria in fecal matter. Of 279 infants randomised, 256 completed the study. The mean difference in weight gain between each probiotic group and the standard group at age 6 months was -0.378 g/day (97.5% confidence interval (CI), -1.541, 0.776; P < 0.001) for L. reuteri and -1.724 g/day (97.5% CI, -2.845, -0.603; P = 0.005) for B. lactis, indicating non-inferior growth. Anthropometric z-scores were not significantly different between any of the formulas, over the entire study, except for a slightly lower weight-for-age z-score in the B. lactis vs standard group at 8 months ( P = 0.034). No differences in adverse events or urinary D-lactate levels were observed. Significantly higher fecal lactobacilli counts were observed with L. reuteri supplementation ( 7.0 log 10 (CFU/g); n = 24) compared with standard formula ( 6.2 log 10 (CFU/g); n = 21). Parent-reported digestive tolerance symptoms were similar between the formula groups and comparable to the breastfed group. Weight gain from enrolment to age 6 months in infants fed formula containing probiotics L. reuteri DSM17938 or B. lactis CNCM I-3446 was non-inferior versus infants fed the same formula without probiotics. Both probiotic formulas were safe and well-tolerated.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Beneficial Microbes
Published
2025-10-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1163/18762891-bja00100
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Infant Nutrition and Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.12
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Safety and tolerance of infant formulas containing probiotics: a multicenter, randomised, controlled trial in healthy term infants

Monjori Mitra, Swastika Ganguly, Nicholas P. Hays, Umesh Vaidya et al.
1 citations
Beneficial Microbes
Infant Nutrition and Health
1.12
article

Safety and tolerance of infant formulas containing probiotics: a multicenter, randomised, controlled trial in healthy term infants

Monjori Mitra, Swastika Ganguly, Nicholas P. Hays, Umesh Vaidya, Ritesh Agrawal, Alison Petit-Jean
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Several studies have documented the safety and tolerance of probiotics in infants, however, most studies have been conducted with supplements. This randomised, double-blind, multicenter trial evaluated growth of healthy term infants fed infant formula supplemented with Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM17938 (L. reuteri; n = 92) or Bifidobacterium lactis CNCM I-3446 (B. lactis; n = 92) or the same formula without probiotics ( n = 95). Mixed feeding with breast milk was allowed in each group. Exclusively breastfed infants ( n = 100) were included for reference. Non-inferiority in weight gain (margin -3 g/day) from enrolment to age 6 months was the primary outcome. Length, BMI, head circumference, and WHO z-scores from birth to 12 months were assessed, as was digestive tolerance, and, in a subset of infants, urinary D-lactate parameters and abundance of key bacteria in fecal matter. Of 279 infants randomised, 256 completed the study. The mean difference in weight gain between each probiotic group and the standard group at age 6 months was -0.378 g/day (97.5% confidence interval (CI), -1.541, 0.776; P < 0.001) for L. reuteri and -1.724 g/day (97.5% CI, -2.845, -0.603; P = 0.005) for B. lactis, indicating non-inferior growth. Anthropometric z-scores were not significantly different between any of the formulas, over the entire study, except for a slightly lower weight-for-age z-score in the B. lactis vs standard group at 8 months ( P = 0.034). No differences in adverse events or urinary D-lactate levels were observed. Significantly higher fecal lactobacilli counts were observed with L. reuteri supplementation ( 7.0 log 10 (CFU/g); n = 24) compared with standard formula ( 6.2 log 10 (CFU/g); n = 21). Parent-reported digestive tolerance symptoms were similar between the formula groups and comparable to the breastfed group. Weight gain from enrolment to age 6 months in infants fed formula containing probiotics L. reuteri DSM17938 or B. lactis CNCM I-3446 was non-inferior versus infants fed the same formula without probiotics. Both probiotic formulas were safe and well-tolerated.

Beneficial Microbes
Nestlé (Switzerland) (CH), Institute of Child Health (IN), Choithram Hospital and Research Centre (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Infant Nutrition and Health
1.12
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.