Can a patient prescribed Vital AF (peptide‑based enteral nutrition) 1.2 kcal/mL be substituted with Isosource (standard polymeric enteral nutrition) 1.5 kcal/mL?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: February 22, 2026View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Can Vital AF 1.2 Be Substituted for Isosource 1.5?

No, Vital AF 1.2 (peptide-based) should not be routinely substituted for Isosource 1.5 (standard polymeric) because they are fundamentally different formula types with distinct clinical indications, and the caloric density mismatch (1.2 vs 1.5 kcal/mL) will result in inadequate nutritional delivery if volumes are not adjusted.

Key Differences Between These Formulas

Formula Composition

  • Vital AF 1.2 is a peptide-based formula containing hydrolyzed proteins (dipeptides and tripeptides) with higher medium-chain triglyceride content, designed for patients with malabsorption or feeding intolerance 1

  • Isosource 1.5 is a standard polymeric formula containing intact whole proteins and primarily long-chain triglycerides, appropriate for patients with normal digestive function 2

  • Standard polymeric formulas like Isosource meet the nutritional needs of the general population and are nutrient-complete with 1.5 L of formula 2

  • Peptide-based formulas are specifically designed for patients with impaired gastrointestinal absorption, not as general substitutes for standard formulas 2

Clinical Indications for Each Formula Type

When Vital AF (Peptide-Based) Is Indicated

  • Patients with severe pancreatic insufficiency who cannot tolerate standard formulas 2

  • Critically ill patients with enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) who fail standard polymeric formulas 3, 1

  • Patients with malabsorption syndromes requiring easier-to-absorb nutrients 1

  • In a pilot ICU study, peptide-based formula (Vital AF) resulted in significantly fewer days with adverse events (p=0.0336) and gastrointestinal events (p=0.0489) compared to standard formula 3

When Isosource 1.5 (High-Calorie Polymeric) Is Indicated

  • Patients requiring fluid restriction who need higher caloric density 2

  • Patients needing higher caloric intake in smaller volumes 2

  • Standard first-line therapy for most patients requiring enteral nutrition, as no clinical advantage has been demonstrated for peptide-based formulas over whole-protein formulas in critically ill patients 2

The Caloric Density Problem

Volume Adjustment Required

  • If the prescription calls for Isosource 1.5 (1.5 kcal/mL), substituting Vital AF 1.2 (1.2 kcal/mL) without volume adjustment will deliver only 80% of prescribed calories

  • To match caloric delivery, you must increase volume by 25% (e.g., 1000 mL of Isosource 1.5 = 1500 kcal, requiring 1250 mL of Vital AF 1.2 to deliver the same calories)

  • This volume increase may be contraindicated if the patient was prescribed the 1.5 kcal/mL formula specifically for fluid restriction 2

Evidence-Based Recommendation

Standard Polymeric Formula Is Preferred

  • Standard polymeric formulas supplying 20-30 kcal/kg non-protein calories with 1.5-2.5 g/kg proteins are usually sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in most clinical scenarios 4

  • In critically ill patients, standard whole-protein formulas are adequate for the majority; formula selection should be individualized rather than automatically opting for specialized products 2

  • The certainty of evidence for specialty formulas (including peptide-based) remains low or very low; in most instances, one should begin with standard polymeric formula 5

When Substitution Might Be Considered

  • Only if the patient has documented feeding intolerance on standard formula (high gastric residuals, diarrhea, abdominal distension) 3, 1

  • Only if there is evidence of malabsorption or severe pancreatic insufficiency 2

  • Only if caloric and protein targets can still be met with volume adjustment 4

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Do not assume peptide-based formulas are "better" – they are more expensive and reserved for specific indications, not routine use 5, 1

  • Do not substitute without recalculating volumes – the 20% caloric density difference will result in underfeeding if volumes remain unchanged

  • Do not use peptide-based formula as first-line therapy – standard polymeric formulas should be tried first unless there is a specific contraindication 2, 5

  • Do not ignore the original indication – if Isosource 1.5 was prescribed for fluid restriction, switching to a lower-density formula defeats the purpose 2

Practical Algorithm for Decision-Making

  1. Verify the indication for the original prescription: Was Isosource 1.5 prescribed for fluid restriction, high caloric needs, or simply as standard feeding? 2

  2. Assess gastrointestinal function: Does the patient have normal digestive capacity or evidence of malabsorption/intolerance? 2, 1

  3. If normal GI function and no feeding intolerance: Use standard polymeric formula (Isosource 1.5 or equivalent) 2, 5

  4. If documented feeding intolerance on standard formula: Consider peptide-based formula (Vital AF) with volume adjustment 3, 1

  5. If fluid restriction is required: Maintain 1.5 kcal/mL density; do not substitute with 1.2 kcal/mL formula 2

  6. Recalculate all volumes: If substitution is clinically justified, increase volume by 25% to maintain caloric delivery

References

Research

Peptide-based formula: Clinical applications and benefits.

Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2023

Guideline

Clasificación y Uso de Fórmulas Enterales

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Research

Classifying Enteral Nutrition: Tailored for Clinical Practice.

Current gastroenterology reports, 2019

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.