Dataset Information

Protein quality in ready-to-use supplementary foods for moderate wasting.

ABSTRACT: There are no guidelines for the optimal protein quality of ready-to-supplementary food (RUSF) for moderate acute malnutrition (MAM). This randomized, controlled, double-blinded, clinical effectiveness trial evaluated two RUSFs in the treatment of MAM. Both foods contained greater than 7% dairy protein, but the protein-optimized RUSF had a calculated digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) of 95%, whereas the control RUSF had a calculated DIAAS of 63%. There were 1,737 rural Malawian children 6-59 months of age treated with 75 kcal/kg/day of either control or protein quality-optimized RUSF for up to 12 weeks. There was no difference in the proportion of children who recovered from MAM between the group that received protein-optimized RUSF (759/860, 88%) and the group that received control RUSF (766/877, 87%, difference 1%, 95% CI, -2.1 to 4.1, p = 0.61). There were no differences in time to recovery or average weight gain; nor were adverse effects reported. Both RUSFs showed indistinguishable clinical outcomes, with recovery rates higher than typically seen in treatment for MAM. The DIAAS of these two RUSFs was measured using a pig model. Unexpectedly, the protein quality of the optimized RUSF was inferior to the control RUSF: DIAAS = 82% for the protein quality optimized RUSF and 96% for control RUSF. The controlled conditions of this trial suggest that in supplementary food products for MAM, protein quality is not an independent predictor of clinical effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Roediger R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7507576 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protein quality in ready-to-use supplementary foods for moderate wasting.

Roediger Rebecca R Stein Hans-Henrik HH Callaghan-Gillespie Meghan M Blackman Jeffrey Kahn JK Kohlmann Kristin K Maleta Kenneth K Manary Mark M

Maternal & child nutrition 20200519 4

There are no guidelines for the optimal protein quality of ready-to-supplementary food (RUSF) for moderate acute malnutrition (MAM). This randomized, controlled, double-blinded, clinical effectiveness trial evaluated two RUSFs in the treatment of MAM. Both foods contained greater than 7% dairy protein, but the protein-optimized RUSF had a calculated digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) of 95%, whereas the control RUSF had a calculated DIAAS of 63%. There were 1,737 rural Malawian ch ...[more]

PMID: 32426949

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prevalence of anaemia and iron deficiency (ID) among children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and their correction during nutritional rehabilitation are not well documented. This study assessed anaemia and ID prevalence and their predictors at start of SAM treatment, and the efficacy of their treatment and effect on gut health of two novel Ready-To-Use Therapeutic foods (RUTF) prepared from soybean, maize and sorghum (SMS) with (MSMS-RUTF) or without added milk (FSMS-RUTF) compared to those of the standard formulation prepared from peanut and milk (PM-RUTF). METHODS:This was a 3-arms parallel groups, simple randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial in 6-59?months old Central Malawian children with SAM. Anaemia was defined using altitude- and ethnicity-adjusted haemoglobin. Iron status was defined using soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) and body iron stores (BIS). We used Pearson's chi-square test, t-test for paired or unpaired data, Kruskal-Wallis test for between-arm differences as appropriate and logistic regression to identify independent predictors of anaemia or iron deficiency anaemia (IDA). RESULTS:The sample size was 389. At admission, the prevalence [%(95%CI)] of anaemia was 48.9(41.4-56.5)% while that of ID and IDA were 55.7(48.6-62.5)% and 34.3(28.2-41.0)% when using sTfR criterion and 29.1(24.4-34.4)% and 28.9(23.7-34.9)% when using BIS criterion, respectively. At discharge, nutrition rehabilitation with SMS-RUTF was associated with the lowest prevalence of anaemia [12.0(6.9-20.3)% for FSMS-RUTF, 18.2(11.9-26.8)% for MSMS-RUTF and 24.5(15.8-35.9)% for PM-RUTF; p =?0.023] and IDA [7.9(3.4-17.3)% for FSMS-RUTF, 10.9(4.8-22.6)% for MSMS-RUTF and 20.5(10.7-35.5)% for PM-RUTF; p =?0.028]. SMS-RUTF was also associated with the highest increase in BIS [Change in BIS (95%CI)] among the iron deplete at admission [6.2 (3.7; 8.6), 3.2 (0.8; 5.6), 2.2 (0.2; 4.3) for the same study arms; Anova p =?0.045]. Compared to P-RUTF, FSMS-RUTF had the highest adjusted recovery rate [OR (95%CI?=?0.3 (0.2-0.5) with p <?0.001 for FSMS-RUTF and 0.6 (0.3-1.0) with p =?0.068 for MSMS-RUTF]. No effect of iron content on risk of iron overload or gut inflammation was observed. CONCLUSIONS:Anaemia and ID are common among children with SAM. FSMS-RUTF is more efficacious in treating anaemia and correcting BIS among this group than PM-RUTF. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered on 15 April 2015 ( PACTR201505001101224 ).

Project description:Inadequate energy and micronutrient intake during childhood is a major public health problem in developing countries. Ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) made of locally available food ingredients can improve micronutrient status and growth of children. The objective of this study was to develop RUSF using locally available food ingredients and test their acceptability.A checklist was prepared of food ingredients available and commonly consumed in Bangladesh that have the potential of being used for preparing RUSF. Linear programming was used to determine possible combinations of ingredients and micronutrient premix. To test the acceptability of the RUSF compared to Pushti packet (a cereal based food-supplement) in terms of amount taken by children, a clinical trial was conducted among 90 children aged 6-18 months in a slum of Dhaka city. The mothers were also asked to rate the color, flavor, mouth-feel, and overall liking of the RUSF by using a 7-point Hedonic Scale (1?=?dislike extremely, 7?=?like extremely).Two RUSFs were developed, one based on rice-lentil and the other on chickpea. The total energy obtained from 50 g of rice-lentil, chickpea-based RUSF and Pushti packet were 264, 267 and 188 kcal respectively. Children were offered 50 g of RUSF and they consumed (mean?±?SD) 23.8?±?14 g rice-lentil RUSF, 28.4?±?15 g chickpea based RUSF. Pushti packet was also offered 50 g but mothers were allowed to add water, and children consumed 17.1?±?14 g. Mean feeding time for two RUSFs and Pushti packet was 20.9 minutes. Although the two RUSFs did not differ in the amount consumed, there was a significant difference in consumption between chickpea-based RUSF and Pushti packet (p?=?0.012). Using the Hedonic Scale the two RUSFs were more liked by mothers compared to Pushti packet.Recipes of RUSF were developed using locally available food ingredients. The study results suggest that rice-lentil and chickpea-based RUSF are well accepted by children.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01553877. Registered 24 January 2012.

Project description:BackgroundModerate acute malnutrition (MAM) affects 33 million children annually. Investments in formulations of corn-soy blended flours and lipid-based nutrient supplements have effectively improved MAM recovery rates. Information costs and cost-effectiveness differences are still needed.ObjectivesWe assessed recovery and sustained recovery rates of MAM children receiving a supplementary food: ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF), corn soy whey blend with fortified vegetable oil (CSWB w/oil), or Super Cereal Plus with amylase (SC + A) compared to Corn Soy Blend Plus with fortified vegetable oil (CSB+ w/oil). We also estimated differences in costs and cost effectiveness of each supplement.MethodsIn Sierra Leone, we randomly assigned 29 health centers to provide a supplement containing 550 kcal/d for ∼12 wk to 2691 children with MAM aged 6-59 mo. We calculated cost per enrollee, cost per child who recovered, and cost per child who sustained recovery each from 2 perspectives: program perspective and caregiver perspective, combined.ResultsOf 2653 MAM children (98.6%) with complete data, 1676 children (63%) recovered. There were no significant differences in the odds of recovery compared to CSB+ w/oil [0.83 (95% CI: 0.64-1.08) for CSWB w/oil, 1.01 (95% CI: 0.78-1.3) for SC + A, 1.05 (95% CI: 0.82-1.34) for RUSF]. The odds of sustaining recovery were significantly lower for RUSF (0.7; 95% CI 0.49-0.99) but not CSWB w/oil or SC + A [1.08 (95% CI: 0.73-1.6) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.67-1.4), respectively] when compared to CSB+ w/oil. Costs per enrollee [US dollars (USD)/child] ranged from $105/child in RUSF to $112/child in SC + A and costs per recovered child (USD/child) ranged from $163/child in RUSF to $179/child in CSWB w/oil, with overlapping uncertainty ranges. Costs were highest per sustained recovery (USD/child), ranging from $214/child with the CSB+ w/oil to $226/child with the SC + A, with overlapping uncertainty ranges.ConclusionsThe 4 supplements performed similarly across recovery (but not sustained recovery) and costed measures. Analyses of posttreatment outcomes are necessary to estimate the full cost of MAM treatment. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03146897.

Dataset Information

Protein quality in ready-to-use supplementary foods for moderate wasting.

Publications

Protein quality in ready-to-use supplementary foods for moderate wasting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets