Abstract

ObjectivesThis study compared the effectiveness of 4 specialized nutritious foods (SNFs) used for the treatment of moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) in children <5 years of age in Pujehun District, Sierra Leone. MethodsThis was a cluster-randomized trial operating through a supplementary feeding program (SFP) providing SNFs for treatment of MAM. Three study foods were fortified blended foods – Super Cereal Plus w/amylase (SC + A), Corn-soy Blend Plus w/oil (CSB + w/oil), and Corn-soy-whey Blend w/oil (CSWB w/oil) – and one was a lipid-based Ready to Use Supplementary Food (RUSF). From 4/2017 to 11/2018, children with MAM, defined as mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≥11.5 cm and <12.5 cm without bipedal edema, were enrolled at participating health clinics and received rations bi-weekly until they reached an outcome or for up to 12 weeks. A stratified randomization technique was used to select 28 sites and randomize them into 7 per arm based on pre-determined criteria. During the study, an 8th site was added to the CSWB w/oil arm due to low enrollment. The primary outcome was graduation from SFP defined as MUAC ≥12.5 cm within the 12-week treatment period. Mixed-effect regression assessed whether there were differences in graduation rates among children treated with one of the 4 SNFs. ResultsA total of 2683 children were enrolled out of a planned sample size of ∼5000. Overall: 63% graduated from MAM, 19% developed severe acute malnutrition (SAM), 7% defaulted (missed 3 visits in a row), 1% died, and 10% reached no outcome within 12 weeks. Twenty-five % were transferred into the study from SAM treatment. By study arm, graduation rates were: 62% in CSWB w/oil, 65% in SC + A, 64% in CSB + w/oil, 62% in RUSF. In an unadjusted model, statistically significant differences in graduation rates between the arms were not detected. Data analysis is ongoing to determine if this finding is maintained in adjusted models. ConclusionsThe 4 foods performed comparably in treating MAM in unadjusted analysis. Decision-making by donors, governments, and programmers on which food to program should also be based on cost-effectiveness analysis. Funding SourcesSupported by the Office of Food for Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call