Dataset Information

Efficacy of three feeding regimens for home-based management of children with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition: a randomised trial in India.

ABSTRACT: To assess the efficacy of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF), centrally produced RUTF (RUTF-C) or locally prepared RUTF (RUTF-L) for home-based management of uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) compared with micronutrient-enriched (augmented) energy-dense home-prepared foods (A-HPF, the comparison group).In an individually randomised multicentre trial, we enrolled 906 children aged 6-59?months with uncomplicated SAM. The children enrolled were randomised to receive RUTF-C, RUTF-L or A-HPF. We provided foods, counselling and feeding support until recovery or 16?weeks, whichever was earlier and measured outcomes weekly (treatment phase). We subsequently facilitated access to government nutrition services and measured outcomes once 16?weeks later (sustenance phase). The primary outcome was recovery during treatment phase (weight-for-height ?-2 SD and absence of oedema of feet).Recovery rates with RUTF-L, RUTF-C and A-HPF were 56.9%, 47.5% and 42.8%, respectively. The adjusted OR was 1.71 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.43; p=0.003) for RUTF-L and 1.28 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.82; p=0.164) for RUTF-C compared with A-HPF. Weight gain in the RUTF-L group was higher than in the A-HPF group (adjusted difference 0.90?g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; p=0.003). Time to recovery was shorter in both RUTF groups. Morbidity was high and similar across groups. At the end of the study, the proportion of children with weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) >-2 was similar (adjusted OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.95; p=0.464), higher for moderate malnutrition (WHZ<-2 and ?-3; adjusted OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.08; p=0.039), and lower for those with SAM (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; p=0.005) in the RUTF-L when compared with the A-HPF group.This first randomised trial comparing options for home management of uncomplicated SAM confirms that RUTF-L is more efficacious than A-HPF at home. Recovery rates were lower than in African studies, despite longer treatment and greater support for feeding.NCT01705769; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Bhandari N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5321385 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of three feeding regimens for home-based management of children with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition: a randomised trial in India.

Bhandari Nita N Mohan Sanjana Brahmawar SB Bose Anuradha A Iyengar Sharad D SD Taneja Sunita S Mazumder Sarmila S Pricilla Ruby Angeline RA Iyengar Kirti K Sachdev Harshpal Singh HS Mohan Venkata Raghava VR Suhalka Virendra V Yoshida Sachiyo S Martines Jose J Bahl Rajiv R

BMJ global health 20161230 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the efficacy of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF), centrally produced RUTF (RUTF-C) or locally prepared RUTF (RUTF-L) for home-based management of uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) compared with micronutrient-enriched (augmented) energy-dense home-prepared foods (A-HPF, the comparison group).<h4>Methods</h4>In an individually randomised multicentre trial, we enrolled 906 children aged 6-59 months with uncomplicated SAM. The children enrolled were random ...[more]

PMID: 28588982

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent (1999) World Health Organization guidelines recommend giving routine antibiotics (AB) for all children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM), even if they have uncomplicated disease with no clinically obvious infections. We examined the evidence behind this recommendation.Methods and findingsOVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, GLOBAL-HEALTH, CINAHL, POPLINE, AFRICA-WIDE-NiPAD, and LILACS were searched for AB efficacy, bacterial resistance, and infection rates in SAM. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Three randomised controlled trials (RCT), five Cochrane reviews, and 37 observational studies were identified. One cohort-study showed no increase in nutritional-cure and mortality in uncomplicated SAM where no AB were used. (p>0.05). However, an unpublished RCT in this setting did show mortality benefits. Another RCT did not show superiority of ceftriaxone over amoxicilllin for these same outcomes, but adressed SAM children with and without complications (p?=?0.27). Another RCT showed no difference between amoxicillin and cotrimoxazole efficacies for pneumonia in underweight, but not SAM. Our meta-analysis of 12 pooled susceptibility-studies for all types of bacterial isolates, including 2767 stricly SAM children, favoured amoxicillin over cotrimoxazole for susceptibility medians: 42% (IQR 27-55%) vs 22% (IQR 17-23%) and population-weighted-means 52.9% (range 23-57%) vs 35.4% (range 6.7-42%). Susceptibilities to second-line AB were better, above 80%. Prevalence of serious infections in SAM, pooled from 24 studies, ranged from 17% to 35.2%. No study infered any association of infection prevalence with AB regimens in SAM.ConclusionsThe evidence underlying current antibiotic recommendations for uncomplicated SAM is weak. Susceptibility-studies favour amoxicillin over cotrimoxazole. However, given that these antibiotics have side-effects, costs, and risks as well as benefits, their routine use needs urgent testing. With reliable monitoring, we believe that there is sufficient equipoise for placebo controlled RCTs, the only robust way to demonstrate true efficacy.

Project description:BackgroundChildren with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) are treated at home with ready-to-use therapeutic foods (RUTFs). The current RUTF dose is prescribed according to the weight of the child to fulfil 100% of their nutritional needs until discharge. However, there is doubt concerning the dose, as it seems to be shared, resulting in suboptimal cost-efficiency of SAM treatment. We investigated the efficacy of a reduced RUTF dose in community-based treatment of uncomplicated SAM.Methods and findingsWe undertook a randomised trial testing the non-inferiority of weight gain velocity of children with SAM receiving (a) a standard RUTF dose for two weeks, followed by a reduced dose thereafter (reduced), compared with (b) a standard RUTF dose throughout the treatment (standard). A mean difference of 0.0 g/kg/day was expected, with a non-inferiority margin fixed at -0.5 g/kg/day. Linear and logistic mixed regression analyses were performed, with study site and team as random effects. Between October 2016 and July 2018, 801 children with uncomplicated SAM aged 6-59 months were enrolled from 10 community health centres in Burkina Faso. At admission, the mean age (± standard deviation [SD]) was 13.4 months (±8.7), 49% were male, and the mean weight was 6.2 kg (±1.3). The mean weight gain velocity from admission to discharge was 3.4 g/kg/day and did not differ between study arms (Δ 0.0 g/kg/day; 95% CI -0.4 to 0.4; p = 0.92) confirming non-inferiority (p = 0.013). However, after two weeks, the weight gain velocity was significantly lower in the reduced dose with a mean of 2.3 g/kg/day compared with 2.7 g/kg/day in the standard dose (Δ -0.4 g/kg/day; 95% CI -0.8 to -0.02; p = 0.041). The length of stay (LoS) was not different (p = 0.73) between groups with a median of 56 days (interquartile range [IQR] 35-91) in both arms. No differences were found between reduced and standard arm in recovery (52.7% and 55.4%; p = 0.45), referral (19.2% and 20.1%; p = 0.80), defaulter (12.2% and 8.5%; p = 0.088), non-response (12.7% and 12.5%; p = 0.95), and relapse (2.4% and 1.8%; p = 0.69) rates, respectively. However, the reduced RUTF dose had a small 0.2 mm/week (95% CI 0.04 to 0.4; p = 0.015) negative effect on height gain velocity with a mean height gain of 2.6 mm/week with reduced and 2.8 mm/week with standard RUTF dose. The impact was more pronounced in children under 12 months of age (interaction, p = 0.019) who gained 2.8 mm/week with reduced and 3.1 mm/week with standard dose (Δ -0.4 mm/week; 95% CI -0.6 to -0.2; p < 0.001). Limitations include not blinding participants to the RUTF dose received and excluding all children with negative appetite test. The results are generalisable for relatively food secure contexts with a young SAM population.ConclusionsReducing the RUTF dose provided to children with SAM after two weeks of treatment did not reduce overall weight or mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) gain velocity nor affect recovery or lengthen treatment time. However, it led to a small but significant negative effect on linear growth, especially among the youngest. The potential effect of reducing the RUTF dose in a routine program on treatment outcomes should be evaluated before scaling up.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN50039021.

Project description:BackgroundDue to the limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness of Community Health Workers (CHW) delivering treatment for severe acute malnutrition (SAM), there is a need to better understand the costs incurred by both implementing institutions and beneficiary households. This study assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of treatment for cases of SAM without complications delivered by government-employed Lady Health Workers (LHWs) and complemented with non-governmental organisation (NGO) delivered outpatient facility-based care compared with NGO delivered outpatient facility-based care only alongside a two-arm randomised controlled trial conducted in Sindh Province, Pakistan.MethodsAn activity-based cost model was used, employing a societal perspective to include costs incurred by beneficiaries and the wider community. Costs were estimated through accounting records, interviews and informal group discussions. Cost-effectiveness was assessed for each arm relative to no intervention, and incrementally between the two interventions, providing information on both absolute and relative costs and effects.ResultsThe cost per child recovered in outpatient facility-based care was similar to LHW-delivered care, at 363 USD and 382 USD respectively. An additional 146 USD was spent per additional child recovered by outpatient facilities compared to LHWs. Results of sensitivity analyses indicated considerable uncertainty in which strategy was most cost-effective due to small differences in cost and recovery rates between arms. The cost to the beneficiary household of outpatient facility-based care was double that of LHW-delivered care.ConclusionsOutpatient facility-based care was found to be slightly more cost-effective compared to LHW-delivered care, despite the potential for cost-effectiveness of CHWs managing SAM being demonstrated in other settings. The similarity of cost-effectiveness outcomes between the two models resulted in uncertainty as to which strategy was the most cost-effective. Similarity of costs and effectiveness between models suggests that whether it is appropriate to engage LHWs in substituting or complementing outpatient facilities may depend on population needs, including coverage and accessibility of existing services, rather than be purely a consideration of cost. Future research should assess the cost-effectiveness of LHW-delivered care when delivered solely by the government.Trial registrationNCT03043352 , ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of three feeding regimens for home-based management of children with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition: a randomised trial in India.

Publications

Efficacy of three feeding regimens for home-based management of children with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition: a randomised trial in India.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure